They Carry Guns

A Glock 9mm in a holster, a legal fashion accessory.

It’s a beautiful day in Pacific Beach as Nate approaches the bronze pelican statue on the boardwalk. He’s slight and blond, spectacled and clad in jeans and an army-green T-shirt. He squints. The sun’s so bright overhead that he is prompted to spray a fine mist of sunblock over his fair skin to stave off a burn.

I’ve never met Nate before, but I know it’s him (a) because I’ve seen his picture and (b) due to the handgun that sits on a holster against his hip. I’m about to get up from where I’m sitting and introduce myself when someone else beats me to the punch. A scraggly-looking beachgoer, a man of indeterminable age because he is so weather-beaten, approaches.

“What’s that for, bro?” he asks, pointing in the direction of Nate’s gun, a Taurus Tracker .44 Magnum revolver.

Before Nate can answer, the man continues.

“There are surfers at the beach looking to party, and you show up with that? That’s not right. Love life! Be mellow!”

This is when I walk up and introduce myself. The beachgoer looks at me for a moment with wild blue eyes, then looks back at Nate, as Nate is beginning to explain what he will have to reiterate time and time again to concerned and/or interested parties: he is open carrying.

The term “open carrying” refers to one who is in possession of a holstered, unloaded firearm on his or her person, displayed in plain view. Nate begins to explain the legalities of this to the beachgoer when Sean approaches, video camera in tow. In shades, a green shirt with double-breast pockets, green cargo pants, and a Sig Sauer P229 holstered on his hip, Sean looks not unlike a police officer.

The beachgoer does a double take.

“Another one!” he exclaims, as Sean greets us warmly.

The beachgoer, incredulous, excuses himself — with one final stare — to go “get baked.”

Soon we are joined by a third open carrier, Sam, who is Nate’s older brother. He’s a tall fellow in jeans and a T-shirt, and his gun, a Glock 17C 9mm semiautomatic pistol, sits squarely in a black holster, handle well visible against the blue of his shirt.

And now it’s my turn.

As the others deal with the beachgoer, who has returned, Nate and I take off to his car, where he removes from the depths of his trunk a silver handgun with a wooden handle. This is a Ruger Single Six .22 revolver, he tells me, as he slides it into the borrowed holster I have fixed to my belt. The gun is surprisingly heavy, nestled just below my waistline.

Back at the boardwalk, it seems that Sam and Sean are getting nowhere with the beachgoer, so we prepare to head out.

First, I am given instructions on what to do if approached by the police. I brace myself as Nate explains.

“What’s going to happen is, they’re going to want to do a 12031(e) unloaded check,” he begins. “They’ll say they want to check your weapon. You say, ‘Are you requesting or demanding?’ If they say, ‘Demanding,’ you say, ‘I don’t consent to any warrantless searches. But I’m not going to resist.’ And then you stick your hands out, they check your weapon, and it’s done.”

Sounds easy enough, I figure. I’ve got my tape recorder ready, as open carriers are urged, via websites like OpenCarry.org, to keep recording devices on them while carrying to capture any interactions with police (and civilians) they might have in case their rights are infringed upon.

“You don’t have to answer any other questions. You don’t have to give them your ID,” Sam instructs. “It’s technically an illegal search under the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment says you have protection against unreasonable search and seizure. If there’s a woman pushing a baby stroller down the boardwalk, that does not give the police the right to check if the kid is kidnapped. So if you’re in full compliance with the law, minding your own business, they technically don’t have the right to stop you to check if your weapon is unloaded or loaded.”

Open carrying, Nate explains, is legal in San Diego and the rest of California.

“[The law says] you can’t carry a loaded gun in an incorporated area,” he says. “This is an incorporated area.”

“Because San Diego is a corporation,” Sam chimes in.

“So then, [the law] says, ‘Firearms carried openly in belt holsters are not concealed within the meaning of this section,’ ” Nate continues, referencing California Penal Code Section 12025(f), which outlines the illegality of concealed carrying and what is and is not considered a concealed firearm.

“So there you have that,” Nate continues. “And then case law says that ammo next to the gun is not considered loaded. So, basically, you start out with a great idea and it gets detracted down to what we have now.”

The nuances of gun laws in California, I find, are difficult. For example, concealed carrying is not legal in San Diego (and all of California) without a permit — that much is abundantly clear — and neither is carrying a loaded gun. Having ammunition situated next to a firearm, however, does not amount to “loaded,” meaning that Nate, Sean, and Sam can carry full magazines on their belts.

The legalities involving open carry are dizzying, the restrictions numerous. One cannot open carry 1000 feet from a school, for instance, or in the “sterile area” of an airport or in a post office or a national park (though it is legal in a national forest).

And then there’s the somewhat sticky issue of the Second Amendment.

“Instead of [the Bill of Rights] being automatic, they did amendment-by-amendment incorporation,” Sam explains. “So now practically all the amendments have been incorporated against the states except the Third, because nobody’s tried to quarter soldiers in [anyone’s] house, and the Second, because it hasn’t happened yet.” By “incorporated against the states,” Sam means that the U.S. Supreme Court has not ruled that the amendment applies to the states.

Comments

Ha! The guy that said this is a moron. It makes me laugh when someone says something so ignorant. In Mexico, there is no constitutional right to bear arms. No one here except for cops and soldiers may carry a weapon, and anyone else who would do so would likely be shot.

This is a good story, but I have to wonder about the logic behind taking such a chance by carrying a weapon only because one would want to drive home one's belief in the second amendment. In other words, I question whether pushing the legal envelope might invite anti-gun folks to seek a change in the law that would prohibit such activity.

The extremists are always out front on any issue, on either side of the political spectrum. The challenge for the rest of us is to try to decide the issue on it's merits rather than on what we think of the issue's "representatives". For instance I support protections for animals even though I think PETA is full of a bunch of wackos. I support individual liberties even though the ACLU is run by liberal idiots. The question this story asks is "should average people be allowed to carry a gun for self-defense?" I say with proper background checks, yes.

The question remains: why carry a gun if the intention is simply to demonstrate that one can? Why should the rest of us become de-sensitized to the carrying of guns by people who may or may not know how to safely handle them, who may or may not be observing the finely parsed word of law that permits such a thing (as long as it's not loaded but wedged next to ammo.

The fact is that guns are lethal weapons. In the hands of a responsible hunter in the woods, a gun is tool used for a specific purpose. Hopefully, the meat obtained is put to good use without waste. Glorifying guns, playing with them in public, adds nothing to the national debate on gun law or to society or to our neighborhoods. In fact, I would not feel safe in a restaurant with a group of men (or women) "open carrying" -- I would think that this restaurant is no longer a safe place for me, my friends or my family.

I applaud the open carryers for trying to educate the moronic masses. Unfortunately, the more likely outcome is for the marching morons to pass a law that makes carrying unloaded guns illegal.

I think the "request/demand" dynamic is interesting. If the search is an illegal one, why not take it to court?

Finally, my overall impression of Kalifornia is that it's lost for now - and unless and until a major revolution takes place, "open carrying" will be a symbolic and fruitless exercise. Yet, there is hope. With the state handing out "IOUs" and entire police and fire departments on the edge of going unpaid, the sort of social breakdown that it will take to push re-arming of the disarmed citizenry may be at hand.

Let's hope the economic collapse is deep and complete. From the ashes you might build a FREE society.

betterdecisions: I respect your opinion on open carrying, guns are certainly lethal weapons and have little practical value other than to target practice and to kill living beings. Our founding fathers knew about guns and their power to bring both good and evil against man, but nevertheless decided that the second amendment was needed to guarantee the citizens of this country to be armed, for better or worse.

I myself used to be for laws restricting the use of firearms, and have since changed my opinion on them because of one major shift in my personal outlook on mankind. Is man inherently good, or evil?

Today I feel that man is inherently good. I am comfortable knowing that my fellow man is armed next to me. I know that I can fear less because everybody is watching out for everybody else.

But before, when I wanted fewer guns in existence, I felt that man was inherently evil. More guns could only result in more violence. Who needed an automatic rifle other than a mass murderer?

The truth is, guns are just tools in the hands of man. An automatic rifle in my hands, or your hands, will only serve to prevent crime and tyranny in our country. Nobody wants to harm another, but without the means to protect ourselves and our rights, we cannot guarantee our way of life for our progeny.

Toe, I don't think you can generalize that man is good or evil. I think some men are good and some evil, with many spending time on both sides. But chances are, the guy carrying openly isn't evil, and is in a position to protect us if one of the bad guys shows up. Just make sure you don't get caught in the crossfire.

Well rickey...I like to think of that scene in Boogie Nights. A young kid, probably wacked out on drugs, goes to rob a donut shop that Don Cheadle is in. The robber doesn't see the hunter sitting in a booth, reading some gun magazine, in a camoflauge hat and vest. That guy sips his coffee, pulls the gun out from his side, and shoots the robber. The robber is able to fire a shot off and kill the cashier, and a second bullet is shot and also kills the hunter. Everyone is dead, except for Cheadle.

Yet, if that "good guy" didn't have a gun, or didn't try to use it...the robber gets the money, and everyone lives.

I always wondered if P.T. Anderson put that scene in there, partly as a take on guns.

I do feel that we should all have the right to carry guns, although I think feeling that man is more good than bad, is a bit flawed.

“A couple of girls came in and had lunch and asked about it,” he says. “They said, ‘Why are you guys all wearing guns?’ ”

betterdecisions: Yes, guns are lethal weapons. As are knives, cars, baseball bats, etc. When used legally and as intended, none of them are a threat to law-abiding citizens; when used irresponsibly or illegally, they all can, and will, kill. Cars far outstrip all the others combined in their death toll, for instance.

Your worries, while a legitimate emotional response of someone who is uninformed on the issue, are not supported by facts. 48 states allow their citizens to carry loaded firearms in public for their own defense. The vast majority are "shall issue", which means that anyone who is not prohibited from even owning a gun is automatically granted a license upon application (and, as noted in the article, 2 states don't even require licenses at all). Yet despite many people voicing concerns such as yours, or even more dire, about what would occur should these states pass such laws, no such problems have occurred, and violent crime (including gun crime - and even gun accidents) has continued to decrease in these states at a rate at or above the national average.

The legal and intended purpose of guns is not just hunting. It also includes, even more fundamentally, self-defense. As one example in the story points out, the police cannot be depended upon to be there when needed. I was a police officer for several years, and even when we could reach a call in under 2 minutes (which is considered extremely good time), we were usually too late to actually prevent a crime, and sometimes even too late to catch the perpetrator after the fact. Even the courts in this country have universally acknowledged that fact. They have consistently ruled that the police cannot be sued for failing to protect individual citizens, even when that failure is due to gross undisputed intentional negligence or indifference, because such protection is neither possible, nor within their job description. Their job is to protect society as a whole by pursuing and arresting criminals after a crime is committed, not preventing or interrupting such crimes. If they manage to do so, great, but they seldom do, and you are horribly naive if you expect it, or worse, depend on it. Google the case Warren v. District of Columbia for a good example, or the terms "police no duty protect" for a larger sample.

The only person with any actual responsibility to protect you is you. To deny people the ability to do so, simply because of uninformed fears that have been demonstrated time and again to be unfounded, is unjust. Open carry wouldn't even be necessary in California if the state lawmakers, driven by such irrational fears (or even less noble motives) hadn't seen fit to restrict the issuance of Concealed Carry Licenses to only those deemed worthy (due to wealth, celebrity, and/or political influence) of a right to self-defense, and instead respected this very fundamental human right of its citizens, as virtually every other state in the country has.

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes ... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -Thomas Jefferson

"Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one." - Benjamin Franklin

What some folks fail to see is that you CAN'T buy a firearm in California without PROVING that you can handle it safely. You have to perform a demonstration on proper handling before you leave the store with it. On top of that, I hear people talking about "Proper background checks". Duh, you have to be run through DOJ before you can even pick on up. On top of that, you need a BFST cert to buy one as well. That requires being tested on laws regarding firearms, legal ramifications, and safe handling.

Personally, my thought is, if you can legally buy a firearm, you should be allowed to legally carry it...concealed or otherwise. The LEGAL firearms owners are some of the most responsible people you will ever meet. It’s those jerks that get them illegally, or in states with more lax requirements to buy, that we have to worry about.

Open Carry in San Diego goes beyond doing it "Just because you can". People carry their "pocket dogs" into supermarkets and restaurants without any care as the health issues surrounding animals and food. If you ask that person to remove their animal, they scream to high holy heaven. You ask a man wearing a gun to leave it outside the premises; chances are far greater that the gun owner will do so without any issue.

Carrying a firearm in the open is no different that wearing a gay pride shirt. There are pro's and con's to everything that we do that people consider "different" or "extreme". As a firearms owner, I applaud Nate and his friends for what they are doing. They are exercising their right, and I, for one, intent to support them both through my words and my actions.

This is a great way to loose your gun. The bad guy knows that it must be "unloaded" so he comes up to you with his "loaded" gun and robs you. Another gun in hands of criminals. Change the law and allow honest citizens to carry "loaded" guns and watch your crime rate go down.

"This is a great way to loose your gun." Yes, by all means, strap it in, so it's not "loose", that way you won't "lose" it.
The looser you get, the more you stande to lose. Lose the loose. Here endeth the lesson.

Thank you Rosa for the great article. I have forwarded it to many friends and family members. It's great how quickly the intelligent, common sense crew stepped up and "shot down" the brainwashed nonsense that's so pervasive in this state. I'm not at all pro-gun or a zealot, I AM however, in favor of rational debate. To me, the anti gun people simply fail to present rational arguments. Guns aren't the only argument they usually fail with. Did anyone notice that a movie advertisement was stapled on the outside of the cover, right where the title "They Carry Guns" is so that the title is covered up? Hmmmmmm.... Pervasive, isn't it?

I was pleasantly surprised to see how fairly this article was written, especially by someone who didn't know much about guns to begin with, but who wasn't afraid to learn.

Hopefully, California will soon wind up reforming CCW issuance to come into line with most of the rest of the country, and with recent decisions like Heller v. DC that make it crystal-clear that the Second Amendment is an individual right that applies to each and every one of us as a US citizen.

PORT ALLEN, LA (WAFB) - A ten-year-old boy left home alone with his sister used his mother's gun to shoot an intruder in the face, police said.

Late Tuesday, West Baton Rouge Parish sheriff's deputies received a call to a Port Allen apartment complex after several shots rang out from inside one of the apartments. "You are out here trying to work and for someone to come and do that and invade your home is very hard," the children's mother said. She asked to not be identified.

Deputies say Dean Favron and Roderick Porter knocked several times on the apartment door. The two young children, a ten-year-old boy and eight-year-old girl, stood on the other side, terrified. "He told his sister to be quiet and seconds later, they started kicking on the door and finally kicked the door in," said Sheriff Mike Cazes. The two children ran to their mother's bedroom closet.

In a panic, the ten-year-old grabbed his mother's gun for protection. "He did what I told him to do. I never told him to get the gun, but thank God he did," she said. Once the two suspects opened the door, threatening the kids, deputies say the boy fired a bullet into the lip of Roderick Porter. The two men were taken to the hospital by a third suspect, who is a 15-year-old juvenile. Once they got to the hospital, they were later arrested. "It's just hard. I don't understand why they would do that. I know they have little brothers and sisters and they wouldn't want anyone to break into their house," said the mother.

Each man is held on $150,000 bond. The juvenile, was taken to a local detention center. One of the suspects, Dean Favron, just finished serving almost seven years in prison for aggravated assault on a Baton Rouge police officer and two carjacking charges. He was released on June 6th.

The 2nd Amendment is usually discussed as the "right to bear arms.' According to the amendment, however, these bearing of arms out of the necessity for citizens to be part of a militia "being necessary to the security of a free State.

The 2nd Amendment Reads:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

What is the meaning of "well regulated militia"
The term "well regulated" in the Second Amendment has been interpreted as a usage of the term "regulated" to mean "disciplined" or "trained".[105] On what constitutes a well regulated militia, Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 29:

If a well regulated militia be the most natural defence of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security....A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss.[39]

Some scholars, such as Saul Cornell, have contended that modern militia movements are not what could be considered "well regulated", since they often lack fixed leadership and may have unstructured training regimes.[106]

As the state militias were eventually nationalized into what we now call the National Guard, one can argue strictly following the 2nd Amendment would mean that citizens in National Guard may have weapons. The 2nd amendment doesn't say every citizen can have a firearm. Gun ownership is qualified by membership into a well regulated militia. It does not mention self-defense or hunting.

A better argument for bearing arms might be seen in state laws allowing firearms for hundreds of years. Past practice. Though some may or may not like that argument. It seems better than the 2nd amendment argument as there is no militia requirement involved.

A side note on Obama.
Obama is not after your guns.

He wants gun owners on his side. He wants to try to triangulate and appease as many people as he can except real liberals. He takes them for granted. Or ignores us liberals. Some he has ignored at his peril: Paul Krugman, Robert Reich, and other economy savvy liberals. Obama picked people who helped cause this financial mess, like Geithner. Why? Obama is a centrist, coroporate friendly Democrat, not a progressive. His cadinet are centrists. He wants everyone to like him. He wants Republican votes.

Altruistically, Obama wants you to have health care. All of us.
That is what he wants to do. Not take your guns.
Stimulus, health care, and better foreign policy. Those are his goals, not guns...

"The 2nd amendment doesn't say every citizen can have a firearm." - MaronFan

MaronFan, you might want to ask yourself how you can insist that you have INDIVIDUAL God-given rights acknowledged by the 1st Amendment, "the right of THE PEOPLE peaceably to assemble," the 4th, "The right of THE PEOPLE to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures", the 9th, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by THE PEOPLE" and the 10th, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to THE PEOPLE" yet NONE of these amendments say "THE INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN," and then decide that when the framers used the very same words "THE PEOPLE" in the 2nd Amendment, "The right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" you reason in your own mind that they DID NOT MEAN "The INDIVIDUAL?"

26

How about this version. This is how the amendment looked in the version that was sent to the states for ratification.
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
A little difference in punctuation and it reads somewhat differently, doesn't it.
James Madison's original version read like this:
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
Seems a little more direct.
You could also look up Parker v District of Columbia and District of Columbia v Heller.
A little research would show that before ratification, many states made explicit requests or demands for the protection of rights to keep and bear arms.You leave out the fact that many scholars contend that Saul Cornell's tendency is to cite only writers that supported militia interpretations of the Second Amendment.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Militia = private citizens protecting their freedom. You need to look up and become good friends with a dictionary. Also, become acquainted with the American revolutionary war. "Well regulated" was a very relative term in the seventeen-hundreds. It's not like there was some massive American army back then. In modern times, in reflection, I would think that the brave and wise people who argued over the amendments would have thought that this would have been obvious. Apparently not.

And get real. Altruistically, Obama wants to be re-elected. He'll say anything to do it. Just like Bush. There's no difference. He's another stinking liar, all politicains are stinking liars. Wake up.

I disagree about Obama. Yes he is a centrist (shocking to Republicans). Whether this is due to personal philosophy or political calculation, I don't care. I'm glad he is. Most of us hover ideologically somewhere around the middle, and we take as much issue with an exrtemist of the left as we do one of the right. I think Bill Clinton was a great president, and is a great man, and the reason I voted for Obama, and continue to have great respect for him, is he reminds me in the way he speaks, and in the way he thinks, of Clinton. And like Clinton, who is as disliked by ultra-liberals as he is by ultra-conservatives, if the fringes both dislike Obama, he's probably doing something right.

I think the "request/demand" dynamic is interesting. If the search is an illegal one, why not take it to court?

By Bambi

My thoughts exactly.

No cop can do a search of the person-which is what they're doing- without, at the very least, "reasonable suspecion". Since it is 100% legal to "open carry" there is no reasonable suspecion, and you have an unlawful search and 4th Amendment violation.

If these guys were serious about their CONSTITUTIONAL right to carry (the reason they open carry according to them)-they would simply refuse the request to do the search, get arrested and go to jail. Then tehy could sue in a federal court and make case law (something tells me this issue has already been decided and it is legal to do a check).

Well, look at my user name - NUFF SAID!
Thanks to Rosa for having the guts to publish this article and for "going all the way" and learning to shoot a firearm.
And...
"As a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights. Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions."
--James Madison, National Gazette Essay, March 27, 1792

"I highly doubt that the "anti-gun folks" could get the Constitution changed to amend or modify the Second Amendment."

They already have. Not by changing the Second Amendment, but by changing how it is interpreted. In other words, you have the right to bear arms, so long as they aren't loaded, you aren't in the incorporated area of the city, the weapons aren't automatic, and so on. If the trend continues, you'll have the right to bear arms so long as you're not actually bearing arms.

Psychological projection (or projection bias) is when a person's personal attributes, thoughts, and/or emotions are ascribed onto another person or people. A modern view of projections is that they are prerequisites for normal social functioning.

A person who is incapable of ascribing his/hers own feelings on other people would have great difficulties in understanding them. This may happen in Aspergers Syndrome.

In classical psychology projection is always seen as a defense mechanism which occurs when a person's own unacceptable or threatening feelings are repressed and then attributed to someone else.

An example of this behavior might be blaming another for one's own failure. The mind may avoid the discomfort of consciously admitting personal faults by keeping those feelings unconscious, and redirect their libidinal satisfaction by attaching, or "projecting," those same faults onto another.

[gravedigger's conclusion] This would account for hoplophobes who don't want OTHER law-abiding citizens to have guns, because if they were honest they'd admit that they don't trust THEMSELVES with guns.

Projection reduces anxiety by allowing the expression of the unwanted unconscious impulses or desires without letting the conscious mind recognize them.

The theory was developed by Sigmund Freud and further refined by his daughter Anna Freud; for this reason, it is sometimes referred to as "Freudian Projection"

Nate- Why don't you associate with black people or other people of race? The only reason you are getting away with what you are doing is because you are white and dress like a dork. If you took 20 guys from the intercity (people of race), put guns on their hips, and paraded around La Jolla, your little gig would be up in a heart beat. Every yuppie and their mother would be on the phone to their local elected official and a law would be written the next day preventing your stupidity. If you wanna be fanatical, why don't you do it. I challenge you to gather up 20 black people and give them all guns. Walk from northern La Jolla to southern Pacific Beach. While you are at it, wear red outfits and exert your first amendment rights and wave signs that read, "F* the Crips." The Constitution allows you to do it. So, do it. Do something news worthy. By suggesting this, some might consider me racist. I'm not racist!! I'm a realist. If "gang members" start doing this, it won't be tolerated. Just because the Constitution allows you to do something, doesn't mean it is correct. I am a gun owner and proud of it. I just think Nate's need for attention is unwarranted.

I challenge you to gather up 20 black people and give them all guns. Walk from northern La Jolla to southern Pacific Beach. While you are at it, wear red outfits and exert your first amendment rights and wave signs that read, "F* the Crips."

The BigBadWolf has thrown down.....who is going to step up to the plate and say ""F" the Crips"!

"Nate- Why don't you associate with black people or other people of race?"

BBW - Caucasian is a "race" as well. Did you mean to use the word "color?" Caucasians are people of "color." They are the color "white." White contains ALL colors. Colors other than white discriminate by excluding certain colors from their makeup in order to be seen as something OTHER THAN white. Black is the absence of ALL color, yet you believe that they are the MOST representative of "people of "race?/color?"

"you are getting away with what you are doing is because you are white and dress like a dork."

BBW - The reason he "gets away with" this, is because it is perfectly LEGAL. His "race/color" has nothing to do with it. Your comments on how Nate dresses are laughable, since it is WELL known that many "people of 'race'" dress like they lost a fight with a commercial clothes dryer.

"If you took 20 guys from the intercity (people of race), put guns on their hips, and paraded around La Jolla, your little gig would be up in a heart beat."

BBW - So you're saying that law enforcement officers would prohibit BLACK people from participating in an LAWFUL open carry event while they allow WHITE people to do this?

"I challenge you to gather up 20 black people and give them all guns. Walk from northern La Jolla to southern Pacific Beach."

BBW - That would probably be illegal, because it is illegal to open carry within 1,000 feet of a school. I doubt that even YOU could plot a route from northern La Jolla to southern Pacific Beach that would not, at some point, place the open carriers in violation of PC 626.9 (carrying a gun within 1,000 feet of a school.) While you're frothing at the mouth, why not pull out a map and see if you can come up with a route. I'll walk it with you, IF it is absolutely LEGAL, even if you're a "person of 'race'"!

BBW - "While you are at it, wear red outfits and exert your first amendment rights and wave signs that read, "F* the Crips." The Constitution allows you to do it. So, do it."

The purpose of open carry is NOT to taunt a certain race, religion, or group such as the Crips. It is to exercise one's 2nd Amendment right as a free citizen. Red shirts and stupid signs intended to incite violence are not necessary to accomplish our goal.

BBW - "Do something news worthy. By suggesting this, some might consider me racist. I'm not racist!! I'm a realist. If "gang members" start doing this, it won't be tolerated. Just because the Constitution allows you to do something, doesn't mean it is correct. I am a gun owner and proud of it. I just think Nate's need for attention is unwarranted."

I believe your willingness to roll over and allow your government to prevent you from exercising your constitutional rights is appalling.

"I believe your willingness to roll over and allow your government to prevent you from exercising your constitutional rights is appalling."

Hey, gravedigger, he's a gun owner. I think that both of your views are pretty extreme, but holy crap, you can exercise your 2nd amendment right in the privacy of your own home!

To his point about constitutional rights, let's discuss extreme methods of exercising those rights. It's perfectly legal for you to stand on a street corner and exercise your First Amendment rights. You have the right, for example, to dislike Chinese people. Whether you do or don't isn't relevant, but you certainly have that right.

Would it be rational of me to be appalled at your unwillingness to go to Chinatown in San Francisco and claim that you dislike Chinese, accusing you of failing to exercise your First Amendment rights?

Here's something else to consider: Does a citizen of the United States of America have to own a gun in order to support the Second Amendment?

Odd..i grew up in California and lived there till just a few yrs ago..here in my new state there is open carry and concealed carry, many people do both..and we have VERY low crime rates with no issues for people carrying..till a Californian moves in and tries to mold the state like California..ugghh I guess some people are simply frightened with by the idea of freedom

First, some sympathy from Tennessee, where even open carry (loaded!) is legal (though, admittedly, that part of the law really was just to make sure I don't get charged because my pistol shows when I reach for the top shelf).
I find it amazing that the millions of folks like me -- regular, concealed-weapons carriers -- are called "gun nuts" just because we realize that police responses won't be faster than a speeding bullet! Know what's "nuts" to me: expecting the police to intervene faster than a bullet can get from an intruder's weapon to me?! That's nuts!
While I appreciate that Tennessee has some gun-law sense (the biggest 'issue' here is over a new law allowing me to carry where liquor is served as long as I'm not drinking), I guess carrying my mag adjacent to my weapon on my belt would be the next-most comforting thing. Thus, I salute those open carriers in CA who promote the law as written, as opposed to the law as should be.
May it change for you soon (Sotomayor notwithstanding).

By the way, I have pistols in .25 caliber (in my pocket as I type, and my default 'minimal-clothing' weapon), .32 ACP, .380 ACP (my all-purpose carry weapon), 9mm, and .45-caliber ACP autos available from which to choose (and a serviceable inside-the-waistband holster for the latter three). A 12-gauge shotgun, with pump action (THAT get's an intruder's attention!) is the house 'defender' ("'Castle' law" here -- you don't need a permit to carry/use a weapon in defense of your own property/home). I'm such a 'nut' that I've never had to use one in earnest. I suspect that disappoints some anti-gun idiot.

(#42) Gravedigger, your answers to BBW's fretting @39 were fine, sir. Were BBW a Californian who knows this state, BBW would have known that the Black Panthers have already openly carried firearms in compliance with California law.

"So, yeah, I got the point of the article. It's legal to carry an unconcealed unloaded gun.

And the point of doing that is so you can scare people and waste the cop's time.

Ok then."

No, you don't understand. See, it's MORE IMPORTANT that in order to exercise one's 2nd Amendment's rights - and in order to prove that they may carry an unloaded weapon around because it's so impressive (not to mention so finger-licking-good-constitutional), the cops get called to the beach (where everyone knows that if you don't carry a gun the waves will swallow you whole), rather than to fight criminals that conceal their weapons.

Next week, I'm going up to Little Italy to exercise my 1st amendment rights. I'm going to spew all kinds of hate-filled rhetoric against Italians. Not that I have anything against Italians, I love Italians, their culture, and their food. But, you know, If I can't take a few cops off of their crime-fighting in order to deal with my right to free speech (there is sure to be trouble), then I'm doing the United States of America a grave injustice.

Carrying unloaded guns makes about as much sense as someone with no hands carrying a knife. It's all for show. If a criminal with a concealed and loaded weapon walked in to wherever you were if you were open carrying, and the criminal had the intention of robbing the place, you would be shot and killed before you could load your weapon. That would be a pretty sad ending to anyone wishing to practice their 2nd Amendment rights.

If you live in Montana or Texas or Idaho, in a rural area, I could see it. In San Diego it makes no sense. Consider changing your credo.

"We're here.
We're stupid.
We're targets for criminals."

Also, every cop you take away from something more important than having to check you out because you think it's really cool to open carry could potentially be chasing down a criminal. You're selfish. You are the reason that MY 2nd amendment rights are in danger.

refried: curious how you blame the wasted police time on the open carriers - who were minding their own business and obeying the law - when the real culprits were the folks who filed a bogus police report.

And if the police are choosing to divert time and effort from actual law enforcement to hassle the open carriers, well, then that's on them, isn't it?

ripness: I'm a total 2nd amendment junkie. Give me the world to rule for a day, and I'd make it legal for anyone to own a freaking loaded bazooka and carry it anywhere. Here's the issue: Open carriers have a responsibility to open carry where people are not apt to be alarmed at them open carrying. Ask any cop. Cops aren't going to call them out for it, because it's legal, but they MUST reply to citizen complaints and concerns. But there's a big difference between doing something for a valid reason and simply doing something because you can.

So, anyone who is carrying a weapon in your world should not be checked out? If you live in a remote area, rural, then fine. But in a city - even if its not corporated - citizens are going to freak out. Now, ask yourself this: Why are people IN SAN DIEGO ON THE BEACH open carrying? Simply because it's legal?

Police don't CHOOSE to divert their time, they resopnd to calls. So no, it's not ON THEM, it's on the people who open carry.

refriedgringo, you actually just stated the very valid reason for open carrying in your post. Let me quote:

"If you live in a remote area, rural, then fine. But in a city - even if its not corporated - citizens are going to freak out."

Now, why is that? Because responsible gun ownership is part of the culture in rural areas, while it's not in a city. So, if you don't want people to freak out every time they see a gun in the city, you have to change the culture. How do you change the culture? By exposing city dwellers to more responsible gun owners.

Right, police don't choose the calls they have to respond to. But, citizens determine which calls police get. So, it's the duty of citizens not to call the police for things that are not crimes. It is not the fault of the law abiding if some ignorant jackass chooses to waste the time of the police.

And actually, police do get to choose what calls they respond to. Try this: go up to an officer, and complain about how McDonald's won't sell you a foot-long sub. The police aren't going to come out and harass the people working at McDonald's, because that's not illegal. Complain to the police that someone drives an SUV. The police aren't going to harass the driver, because driving an SUV is not against the law. Yet, complain that someone is open-carrying, when open carry is perfectly legal, and suddenly the police are obligated to show up? Puh-lease.

Anyway, it must really suck trying to live your life so as not attract the ire of those most willing to force you to conform.

The police are obligated to show up when a citizen calls in with a complaint. The tech answering the call sends the officer(s). That's how it is done. It's their call, not the officer's call. The officer doesn't get to say, "Hey, even though I have no idea if the gun is loaded, I've decided not to respond." Come on, you have to know better than that.

As to "...it must really suck trying to live your life so as not attract the ire of those most willing to force you to conform."

No. What sucks is people that think conforming and obeying are obligations. Common sense is an obligation. Conforming and obeying in spite of what is in the best interest of society - and in spite of what is best for themselves - well, that is nothing short of tragic.

The reasons given for why guns should be controlled and outlawed are that they are deadly. Correct?

Betterdecisions and the rest: Are you going to outlaw alcohol? Alcohol abuse and misuse kills more men, women and children in MV accidents, (not to mention healthwise,) annually than guns have in -- how many decades?

Education is often promoted as being the solution to many problems. Learn about guns, take some classes, and learn how to handle firearms safely. Being around them or seeing them doesn't trigger fear. There is nothing wrong with being "desensitized."

Next week, I'm going up to Little Italy to exercise my 1st amendment rights. I'm going to spew all kinds of hate-filled rhetoric against Italians. Not that I have anything against Italians, I love Italians, their culture, and their food.

May I suggest skipping Little Italy, and go directly to San Felipe's at 3960 Fifth Avenue in Hillcrest.

refried, in that case, it is the government's job to train their techs to know that open carry is not illegal, and thus no more worthy of sending out a call than a complaint that the neighbor is painting his house green. It is not the fault of the law abiding citizen that police resources are being wasted on him. It is the fault of the original complainant and the tech.

Although you can't tell me that communication between techs and police officers is one way. Surely, if police members complain to their department that the techs are sicing them on law-abiding citizens for the act of doing something perfectly legal, and thus interfering with their legitimate efforts, the techs would receive the education they so desperately need. I can only that the reason this doesn't happen is because a) the resources diverted at, at present, minimal, and so your practical argument unfounded or b) the police see law abiding citizens exercising their rights as a greater threat than criminals, and so the cultural change is all the more necessary.

Surfpuppy: If a cop is ordered to a location, they have to go or else report that they can't go for whatever reason. Techs aren't going to ask if the caller saw ammo in the weapon. Where a weapon is involved, the make no assumptions. Noise complaints often do not leave the tech's desk, they're simply logged when it's busy. I do understand what you're saying, but when a citizen is calling in about someone carrying, the techs will not ignore that call. And I'm glad they don't. It could be a bad guy wearing that gun.

And, most cops that I know are totally pro open carry on principal, but against it in practice. Were I a cop, I would hate to be facing someone with a gun on there hip not knowing if they were good or bad.

Oh, and thanks for the tip on San Felipe's! I so love Italian food. I was seriously depressed when they closed Sicilian Village in the Gaslamp. They had great clam sauce.

And, before I get other negative comments concerning my viewpoints, or else in order to save some people some time and energy, I invite you to read this and understand where I'm coming from.

First, I think that anyone in the United States of America has the right to wear a loaded gun at their side. LOADED! I would prefer that the gun is loaded. It would certainly cut down on crime, and probably cut down on rudeness. And I think that you should be able to purchase bazookas. Missile launchers. Anything that you can afford.

Unfortunately, your government has made that an impossibility on most States. It isn't my fault. It isn't your fault either. They've decided to interpret the Bill Of Rights however they wish. So, here we are, stuck in having the right to bear guns without ammo.

Here's another thing that I think: You have the right to take drugs. Any drug you wish, cocaine, heroine, drano, whatever you want. It's in the preamble, the persuit of happiness! Unfortunately, the government has decided that drugs are bad for you unless a doctor gives you a note, written in Latin, so you're all screwed there as well.

But, you DO have the right to carry an unloaded weapon in all but two States (some with proper permission). Now, guns aren't GOOD for you. If you get shot by one, it will hurt a lot. You might die. But holy crap, I would defend your right to own one with my life if it came down to that. I would simply encourage you to be as responsible as you could with that right.

Now, let's get to my point about drugs. Pretending that all drugs were legal, and knowing that I am all for that, there is no way that I'm going to preach to anyone that drugs are good. They aren't. They can hurt you even worse than the bullet of a gun.

But freedom is freedom.

I don't believe that an open carry is going to desensitize the public to the 2nd amendment any more than you would want me to advocate drug use in order to desensitize the public to legalizing drugs. Freedom has a price: responsibility.

I won't argue with y'all anymore, I support your right to bear arms, I just hope you give this some thought.

Refried, your analogies completely fail because the situations are not analogous.

You do have the right to take drugs, for valid medical use. To save your life, you are allowed access to the most powerful opiates, to chemical concoctions that could dissolve your internal organs, to pills that alter your state of mind. No one is going to deny you the right to use these if your health is endangered (unless Obamacare passes, but that's another issue entirely).

Similarly, the founding fathers saw that there was a legitimate use for firearms; for self defense, either from those individuals that threaten our person and property, or from the government. Open carry and concealed carry both serve this responsible use. You cannot choose when you will be the target of a crime. When you are mugged in an ally, a gun sitting locked in your cabinet at home may as well not exist. If a gun is not on your person, you are abrogating your right of self defense to others who may not be in a position to help you when you need them.

You argue that the very possession of a gun is the equivalent of taking cocaine or the shouting of racial epithets. You equate a broad right with narrow instances of abuse of other rights. Quite simply, your arguments are not honest. Open carry in a restaurant is not the same as yelling Italian slurs in that restaurant. It is the same as just talking in that restaurant. Brandishing a gun, waving it at random people, that is an abuse of a right as is getting drunk and driving a car. But there, an action above and beyond the simple possession of a gun, a bottle of Jack, or a Ford Mustang, is what is objectionable, what is immoral, what is illegal.

So yes, don't argue with us any more. At least until you are ready to do so honestly, not with straw men and strained analogies.

Refriedgringo First off the police do NOT have to respond to a call. I can say from experience that they do not always show up when you call. Secondly your comment about open carrying being useless actually you are wrong on that front too. There was even a recent case in the news where an open carrier stopped a crime.

Big BadWolf um we DO have black people and other races that open carry here in San Diego. There are even women and senior citizens that carry. So your comment is totally off base.

refriedgringo ... Where do I start with you? It is interesting that when you see that you are losing the argument, you take it to its extreme.

"And I think that you should be able to purchase bazookas. Missile launchers. Anything that you can afford." - refriedgringo

Virtually NONE of the open carry participants would endorse this nonsense. The Constitution and other supporting documents CLEARLY define "arms" as the standard issue weapon for an infantryman. In other words, citizens are allowed to carry whatever the ordinary soldier carries. Back in the old days it was a musket or a flintlock. As time progressed, weapons became more advanced, but there is STILL the intent of the amendment, that of allowing citizens to carry what a soldier would carry, STANDARD ISSUE.

Now, soldiers DO "USE" bazookas and missile launchers and canons and patriot missiles and more, but those weapons are not STANDARD ISSUE. Soldiers get a handgun, and a rifle, and even THAT is more than we are allowed to carry, since citizens are (currently) forbidden from carrying AUTOMATIC weapons. We carry SEMI-automatic weapons. I am willing to bet that you probably DON'T KNOW or WON'T ADMIT the OBVIOUS DIFFERENCE between AUTOMATIC and SEMI-automatic weapons, because it doesn't meld with your anti-2nd amendment agenda.

Then you say

"I don't believe that an open carry [movement] is going to desensitize the public to the 2nd amendment any more than you would want me to advocate drug use in order to desensitize the public to legalizing drugs." - refriedgringo

You've never heard about PROHIBITION, have you?

When the FIRST new model of a Corvette or some other awesome car rolls down the street, it turns heads, but after there are a few thousand of them running around town, they barely get a second look. Do you REALLY stop to take a second look at a new VW beetle any longer? You're used to seeing them, so they do not invoke a reaction.

"People can get used to anything. Even hanging." - Unknown (My step-dad used to say this, quoting someone else)

You are not thinking with your brain. you are operating entirely on emotion.

Guys used to bring their .22s in to high school and store them in their lockers so they could hunt rabbit dinners after school. :-)

There's a saying ... "God made man, but Samuel Colt made them equal". With weight lifting sets common in the prisons, and a recidivism rate hovering at 55% (within 2 years)*, you can bet that you'll be at a serious disadvantage without some form of "persuasion". Especially if you're old and slow like me. And even more so if the criminals are running in packs, as they're apt to do. A firearm is a very practical tool. You don't have to kill with it. But if necessary, it is a last option ... Or you could dial 911 (if they let you) and hope for the best. Just be ready to stall 6+ minutes ...

Kudos to the open carry folks. Good luck getting some of our rights back!

"They already have. Not by changing the Second Amendment, but by changing how it is interpreted. In other words, you have the right to bear arms, so long as they aren't loaded, you aren't in the incorporated area of the city, the weapons aren't automatic, and so on. If the trend continues, you'll have the right to bear arms so long as you're not actually bearing arms." -refriedgringo

This is another reason we need to continue open carrying. Not only to protect ourselves when law "enforcement" cannot, but also to warn the Government that we ARE NOT happy with the way things are going. They are not doing their job of representing THE PEOPLE... If they continue on attacking out rights and doing whatever they please, things will be done to stop them.

"This is another reason we need to continue open carrying. Not only to protect ourselves when law "enforcement" cannot, but also to warn the Government that we ARE NOT happy with the way things are going. They are not doing their job of representing THE PEOPLE... If they continue on attacking out rights and doing whatever they please, things will be done to stop them." - jwalker

This is precisely why the 2nd amendment is being trampled on, and why the form of Government you want will not be voted into office. Carrying an unloaded gun openly, in order to protest and intimidate, is the exact wrong reason to open carry.

"...things will be done to stop them."

Scary. That's the exact same thing the Iranian government promises to do to its protesting citizens.

There were questions about the "Request or Demand" issue when confronted by law enforcement in a 12031 check.
It's simple. If it's a request, you are under no obligation to incriminate yourself (5th Amendment)by allowing a warrantless search of your person. If the Peace Officer "demands" to inspect your weapon pursuant to 12030 and 12031 you are complying with a direct order and to resist is unlawful.

The law also allows Peace Officers to do a "pat down" (Terry search) for weapons,for their safety. Since your firearm is in plain sight it would be reasonable that they would want to assure that it was in fact "unloaded" before they continued their "interview".

While I wholeheartedly agree with the open carry message, I have to also agree with the fact that some very bad people out there would just see you as a quick stop gun store (no 10 day wait or background check). They are robbing Armed Security Guards at San Diego Trolly stations of their weapons an spare ammo and their gun are LOADED. Although these guards may not be the sharpest tools in the shed, they all have had BSIS required 16 hours of training and they qualify twice a year. That's more practice/shooting than a lot of CCW holders do.

I applaud the Reader and Rosia for a great article, we in the gun culture need more like it.

Now the race/color card being played, stop it. First of all nobody should GIVE anyone a gun(s)to walk around with,especially if they are not safety trained. Please are we not above this childish behavior? Inciting violence by wearing shirts that have the "F" bomb on them (regardless of whom they attack)is vile and immature.

Stick to the gun issue, open carry. Like or not it is legal. Smart or not, isn't my call. Personally I think it's rather provocative but hey I live in an open carry/concealed carry state and county and open carry (loaded)still scares the sheeple because they don't understand... An Armed Society is a Polite Society.

I love how some folks purport an ability to know what is in the mind of another person.

Ponzi - "It has nothing to do with preserving rights and if anything will only make the public ask to end 'public carry' as well."

"Any nation that thinks more of its ease and comfort than its freedom will soon lose its freedom; and the ironical thing about it is that it will lose its ease and comfort too." - W. Somerset Maugham

Ponzi - "A gun is a violent device, a weapon, it's should only be carried by people who are trained and permitted to protect."

I'll pass your message along to the hundreds of thousands of criminals who are currently walking the streets - with GUNS.

Ponzi - "Just wearing it 'because you can' is immature."

Hoplophobia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hoplophobia (pronounced /ˌhɒplɵˈfoʊbiə/), from the Greek hoplon, or weapon, is defined as the "fear of firearms" or alternatively, an irrational fear of weapons in general, and describes a specific phobia.

Political usage

Firearms instructor Colonel Jeff Cooper coined the word in 1962 to describe a "mental disturbance characterized by irrational aversion to weapons". Cooper employed the term as an alternative to slang terms, stating: "We read of 'gun grabbers' and 'anti-gun nuts' but these slang terms do not (explain this behavior)." Cooper attributed this behavior to an irrational fear of firearms and other forms of weaponry. He stated that "the most common manifestation of hoplophobia is the idea that instruments possess a will of their own, apart from that of their user."

It's interesting to note that the CA restrictions on carry of loaded firearms is a racist law enacted to prevent black people from carrying firearms - it was signed in 1967 by Ronald Reagan and was called the Mulford Act.

Suburban whites didn't want uppity black men (mostly Black Panthers) carrying guns to protect themselves (of course if you were white and carrying, the police would look the other way - carrying while Black would get you shot instead), so we Californians are now stuck with the effects of their racist prejudices and intolerance - and those that support the current law against carrying defensive firearms are enablers of racism. Not kidding either.

Of course, if you're rich you can get a permit to carry a loaded concealed handgun - just ask Sly Stallone (issed a permit Los Angeles County 30-Nov-2004 to carry a loaded concealed handgun). So it's classist too.

The laws against the law-abiding carrying defensive firearms in CA is a racist, classist, remnant of California's archaic, conservative past and needs to go away.

First of all, this isn’t a new thing that has not been done before, especially in the state of California. I know this from personal experience having done the same thing myself.

I had legally purchased my Colt .45 Officers Model weapon and wanted to have some gun smith work done to the throat of the receiver, the trigger and the installation of better sights on the slide.

Being this was a new weapon for me and I had not yet picked up a pouch to carry it in, which would have made it a concealed weapon and thus illegal to carry on the street, with full knowledge of the open carry laws of this State and the local community, I simply ensured the weapon was unloaded, holstered it and girdled on the holster. I then went to the gun smith’s establishment to have the work done.

As I walked up to the door of the gun smith’s establishment I encountered a uniformed police officer coming out of the door. He glanced at my weapon, asked if it was loaded, to which I replied, “No, it isn’t,” and he replied, “Looks like a nice gun, mind if I look at it?” I replied “no”, upholstered the weapon, locked open the slide and handed it to him without further comment.

He took the weapon, examined it, and then asked, “Mind if I dry fire it?” I replied, “Yes, I do mind because it’s not good for the spring and firing pin.” He said, “Oh, didn’t think about that,” and handed the weapon back to me while saying, “Nice gun, thanks for showing it to me” and went on his way.

The gun smith inside, seeing the entire incident, said, “Wow, I thought you were going to get in trouble.” I replied, “Why, I’m not breaking any law, the officer knew that and so did I.”

Why should we be afraid of guns or the people who carry them legally?

I particularly liked gravedigger’s posting on the definition of the word Hoplophobia as it definitely applies to these types of conversations.

Not long ago my daughter-in-law made the comment that guns were dangerous. In fact she got upset about the issue. When she became a little more rational, using her brain instead of her irrational emotions, I said, “Let’s do a little experiment shall we?”

Being skeptical she asked, “It’s gonna be safe isn’t it?” I assured her it would be perfectly safe and that no one could possibly be hurt.

She agreed so the experiment started.

What I did was to completely load the gun and even rack one into the chamber. I admit the pupils of her eyes dilated a bit when I racked one into the chamber but to her credit she didn’t run out of the room screaming in mortal fear of her life either.

I then sat the now fully loaded and cocked weapon in the middle of the dinner table.

After a few moments she said, “Well, what’s the experiment?” I replied, “It’s already started.” She said, “I don’t understand.” I then explained, “What we are doing right now is waiting to see what the gun does.” She said, “Well it looks to me like it’s just sitting there.” I replied, “Good observation. Now, I wonder how long it’s gonna sit there before it does something.” She said, “Dad, that’s silly, it isn’t going to do anything.”

I then said, “Congratulations, you got the point. It isn’t going to do anything until someone else or I picks it up and make’s it do something.”

Fear of a gun is irrational. Fear of people who illegally use guns is not.

What did I get out of that conversation and experiment with my Daughter-in-law? Well for one I now have a shooting partner at the shooting range and I have to admit that she’s become a pretty good shot. The next thing is that together, with my son of course, we are teaching my grandchildren about guns and how to handle them safely. And while there are guns located in various portions of the house, the children all understand what they are, what they are used for and, most importantly, the fact that they are not toys to be played with or waved around.

While we do have family outings that frequent the gun range, playing cops and robbers or cowboys and Indians, is discouraged as we do not want to minimize what guns are capable of doing. We also don’t watch movies and television that promote the illegal usage of guns or the video games that titillate many of our society with visions of carnage by the usage of guns.

So for my family at least, it’s common knowledge that guns are simply nothing more than a tool. Like a claw hammer suddenly brought down on the back of someone’s skull, the inappropriate use of any tool can have lethal results.

About ten years ago a gun saved my life. Yes, the gun saved my life.

You see I was awaken one night about 11:30PM by a guy all hopped up on drugs banging away at my front door. Not knowing his actual condition I had, as it turned out wisely, slipped my .45 into my jean pocket and investigated. Upon unlocking the door to see what was going on, the guy forced his way into my home and demanded I give him money. At that time we were now standing within the confines of my home and he did not have any idea I had a concealed and loaded weapon on my person.

I explained that I didn’t have any money and he proceeded to say, “Then I’m gonna beat the crap out of you and take what I can find.” He then proceeded to come towards me and me, being much older and not in all that good physical shape, I decided that he could very easily kill me with his bare hands. Not seeing any weapon in his possession I immediately produced the .45, pointed it at him and said, “Please do not come any closer and leave my property immediately.”

With an expression of disbelief, he said, “You gonna shoot me with that?” I replied, “Only if you leave me no other alternative, now leave my property immediately.”

He shrugged, turned around and left through the door saying, “I can’t believe that you would kill me over something like money.”

After he left I heard him yell to someone outside, “Call the police, this guy pulled a gun on me.”

I immediately called PD myself, told them what was going on and requested they immediately respond. Then I completely unloaded my .45, removed the slide and sat all of it in the center of the kitchen table.

When the cops arrived, and I had determined they were in fact the cops, I opened the door and let them in. They asked where the gun was and I told them.

They then asked if I had any other guns in the house and I told them where they were as well.

Things got pretty smooth at that point and no one on the PD force was upset. I asked the senior officer who responded, “Where do we go from here?” He smiled and said, “Probably no where. You didn’t discharge the weapon and didn’t even have it outside the confines of your home. I don’t see that you have broken any laws.“

At that point the guy who tried to assault me arrested me on a “Citizens Arrest” for illegally brandishing a firearm.

As I soon found out, that act took all matters of consideration out of the hands of the PD and they had no other alternative than to book me. I will mention at this time they were not particularly happy about this but there wasn’t much they could do about it as it was technically out of their hands and any further action would come under the direction of the District Attorney.

I was cuffed, transported, fingerprinted and photographed. Then sans all of my weapons and ammunition which had been confiscated, I was booked and then released on my own recognizance and transported home.

At my arraignment I was offered the deal of a lifetime. I could plea guilty, be sentenced to two years in the county jail, the maximum time they could hold me in that facility without sending me directly to a state prison, loose all my guns and loose my rights to own a gun for the rest of my life. Or, I could plea not guilty and then have to go through a trial, where the DA guaranteed me that I would be found guilty and be sent to prison for at least 10 years.

Now that is a sobering decision for anyone to make. Finally I said, “Not guilty” and was asked, “Are you sure? Do you understand what your not guilty plea is going to do?”

I replied, “Yes, but since I am not guilty of committing a crime, I am not going to say that I am.”

Immediately my employer placed me on suspension as I could not legally perform my work having this type of charge hanging over my head. That alone damn near placed me into bankruptcy and my lifestyle took a dramatic change as a result but I survived.

Finally I had my day in Superior Court. The formalities of the case started and the judge proceeded to read the reports in my file. After a couple of minutes he closed my folder and called me, my attorney and the District Attorney to the bench and said, “I see no violation of the law here. This gentleman, actually he used my formal name, was standing within the confines of his own home, defending himself from eminent bodily harm by wielding his gun. Nowhere in State or Federal law does it stipulate that a person does not have the right to defend himself against bodily harm by using a gun, particularly if he is standing in his own home on his own private property.”

He then issued a warning to the DA that if the DA ever brought such a case like this before his bench for adjudication and possible conviction, that he personally would file a motion to have the DA removed from the bar and forbidden to practice any type of law in the State of California.

Before he was done, he turned to me and asked, “Are their any questions or comments that you would like to make?” I responded, “Yes your honor, since I have committed no crime I would like you to order the Police Department to return all of my weapons and ammunition.” He replied, “It is so ordered.”

Later that day I stopped by PD to retrieve my weapons and ammunition but had to wait. You see my PD didn’t have a policy in place whereby they could return seized weapons to their rightful owners. It had never happened before in my community and they simply did not have a policy in place that allowed them to do so.

So they called the Chief of Police and he came down to the department and wrote the policy while I was standing there. Then with a smile he handed the newly created policy to the weapons custodian and with three other officers present, loaded all of my guns and ammunition into the trunk of my automobile. They were all pretty happy that everything turned out as it did and, as a result of the ordeal, I now have several officers as personal friends to practice with at the gun range.

With respect to racism and the reasons for California’s current messed up gun laws. While illegal activity by certain groups may have spurred California legislation to create these laws, I don’t see anywhere in those laws to make me believe they are racist in intent. To think such things, without proof, is wrong and nothing but idle speculation.

I will agree that these laws as they are written at present do favor those who have the money and time necessary to work through the issues and thereby obtain a concealed weapons permit but I don’t see this as a qualifier to say that these laws deny anyone the lawful right to go through the processes necessary to obtain a permit. The reason is because there are no laws in effect that I am aware of that prevent any person from attaining money and time and then using that money and time in order to obtain a legal permit. As far as I can determine, there are no laws that I know of that don’t allow a person the opportunity to change their “class” and certainly there are no laws that promote any idea of one race of people to be more or less important than any other race of people.

Granted, if people choose to remain in the class they find themselves in, that is their business. However there is nothing to say, other than their willingness to put forth the effort, that they cannot make such a change if they so desire.

Furthermore, the topic of discussion in the article doesn’t address the issue of concealed weapons and permits but the right, under the law, to carry unconcealed and unloaded weapons, within the boundaries specified by law.

Also, before I close here, I am a qualified expert marksman, a title I was awarded during my military training and am also a seasoned combat veteran from the Vietnam era. My father was ex-82nd Airborne and started my gun training, as I did with my own children, at the age of four. No one in my family, other than my self, has ever had a negative incident as a result of our ownership or usage of guns. And I am proud to say that even with my negative experience that all charges were dropped and completely removed from my records as if they never occurred.

Still, as a function of my job, when asked by the appropriate authorities, I willingly divulge the facts of the incident on the off chance they might one day uncover the sealed records of the case. My reasons for doing so are simple. I’d much rather that they know what occurred out of my own mouth rather than to conceal the incident as if it didn’t occur and then have them find out about it.

Honestly, had I been in a different state when the incident occurred and not in California where far to many people have a complete irrational fear of guns, the entire matter wouldn’t have been escalated into such a perceived problem and summarily dismissed, as it was under the auspices of a California Superior Court.

What happened to the guy that accosted me in my own home? Nothing. I found out later that he had a rap sheet longer than my arm and had done time for home envision before. In point of fact, about two months ago I received a telephone call from the DA’s office and they were looking for him because he had jumped parole.

When I asked the DA why they were calling me they said, “Because yours is the only valid telephone number we have in his records.” I responded, “Do you really know who I am?” After a short pause they said, “Oh, you were one of the people he attempted to assault? We’re sorry and we won’t bother you again.”

What’s the problem here folks? They know how to find the law abiding citizens but are pretty lax in tracking the criminals they have wandering about on the streets. And that is the number one reason for having a legally armed citizenry. It’s not to go out and play cops and robbers with. It is specifically there to allow individual citizens to protect their loved ones and themselves from criminals who operate completely outside of the scope of law and would think nothing of killing you for their own ends.

Don’t get me wrong, I have a healthy respect for the police and am glad they are around. But I also know that statistically there is usually only one cop on duty to protect over 1,000 people at any singular point of time. Logistically speaking, it is impossible to expect police protection 24 hours per day as it is a physical impossibility. That being the case, when it comes to life or death protection, you’re pretty much on your own and law enforcement then becomes a matter of writing the report after the fact.

Unfortunately, our police in such matters, are really only those people who write the reports and investigate the facts after someone has already been shot. When it comes to the point where it’s you against your assailant, it’s a one on one transaction and the one with the superior firepower and knowledge on how to use it is going to be the one that prevails.

Or is there anyone out there that is naïve enough to believe that you can say to your assailant, “Hold on a minute while the police arrive to protect me,” and feel your assailant is going to comply? By the time the police arrive on the scene to write their reports, the coroner is usually hauling your lifeless corpse to the morgue.

Should everyone have a gun? Absolutely not! If you legally own a gun you should know how to legally and safely use it. If you don’t take the time to become proficient with the tool, don’t use it or even own it. It will only get you into trouble in the long run.

Also, before I close here, I am a qualified expert marksman, a title I was awarded during my military training and am also a seasoned combat veteran from the Vietnam era. My father was ex-82nd Airborne and started my gun training, as I did with my own children, at the age of four. No one in my family, other than my self, has ever had a negative incident as a result of our ownership or usage of guns. And I am proud to say that even with my negative experience that all charges were dropped and completely removed from my records as if they never occurred. And as my father before me, I am also proud to say that I am a lifetime card carrying member of the NRA as is my son, my daughter and, when we receive the membership status in the mail, my daughter-in-law, the one who use to have an irrational fear of guns. Oh, I almost forgot, I am a white guy so it’s apparent that none of the bad things that have happened to me had anything to do with my race.

Please accept my apologies for the length of this post but I wanted to exercise my first amendment rights of free speech and have my say.

Given California's legacy of gun control laws to oppress minorities and the complicity of the CA police in this (especially during the 60s and 70s), I'd suspect that a legal open carrying Black man would be guilty of "owning a gun while black" and would have found himself proned out or shot in short order by the police.

There's a reason that we advise open carriers to dress in business casual - a decently dressed black man with a legal openly carried gun in CA at least has a chance because he doesn't (as easily) set off cops who have been trained by their department that "any armed black man = criminal thug, shoot him". Heck, they don't even need to see a gun, they just need to think a black man's armed.

In Illinois, black men are denied FOID cards at a much higher rate than white men with the same squeaky-clean records. CA has the same problem too with concealed carry permits. Let exercise of basic civil rights be "discretionary" and you make it "discriminatory" because the "discretioners" will use their racial prejudices to deny civil rights to minorities. Happens every time. CA needs to liberalise their archaic, Republican-devised concealed carry laws, they're falling far behind the rest of the nation, where 2nd amendment progressives are making leaps and bounds rolling back repressive laws.

jlbraun: There is a duplicity you are missing regarding the Mulford Act - the very people that needed the 2nd amendment in order to fight repression actually caused the law to be passed. You call it racism, but blacks were also free to carry until the Black Panthers decided to flex their constitutional muscles.

Not that there wasn't racism, and not that blacks weren't being repressed, but that the method backfired horribly.

Some of the other comments in here have been very interesting. But I believe that exercising the right to open carry should br rooted in the responsibility of being rational about it.

Examples of rational:

I live in a rural area, and the closest police presence is sometimes far away.

I have to carry large amounts of cash to the bank and feel more comfortable when I am armed.

I like guns and buy them and shoot them often, so when I go shooting or go to the gun store I open carry.

Examples of irrational:

It's my constitutional right and so irrespective of how anyone else views it, I am going to take my gun with me because I can, especially in urban locations, just to prove a point.

I distrust the government and believe that cops don't know what they're doing, so I'm going to make them see things my way by carrying a gun.

I'm part of a movement that believes that we should all walk the streets armed, and we'll do that and dare the government to take our rights away.

If you look back through the comments here, you'll find all of this in some form. You'll also find people claiming that gun fear has something to do with it. I've owned guns, fired guns, and even been held up. I don't fear guns. I fear some of the comments in here, the irrational ones. I strongly support the 2nd Amendment and I would hate to see irrationality take away what little is left of it.

So? You don't have to show "need" to exercise Constitutional, Goddess-given rights like the right to free speech or the right to capable defensive arms. They're there all the time, and neither you nor some elected official can never sign them away.

"I am going to take my gun with me because I can, especially in urban locations, just to prove a point."

So? Given that they didn't hurt anyone (except maybe the sensibilities of the intolerant were offended), I as a Democrat have zero problem with them doing this. It's the same as a guy standing on the street corner day after day railing against the Iraq War - I might not go out there and join him because I think he's a little extreme, but I support his viewpoint in general. Don't commit the sin of assigning motives and meaning to a movement based on their more extreme members.

"I distrust the government and believe that cops don't know what they're doing, so I'm going to make them see things my way by carrying a gun."

Suggest you look up "psychological projection". Carrying a gun to seek a confrontation with cops? All I saw was a law-abiding guy doing his thing, having a brief and pleasant interaction with cops, and going about his day. Perhaps you were reading a different article?

"I'm part of a movement that believes that we should all walk the streets armed, and we'll do that and dare the government to take our rights away."

Again, I didn't see that in the article. Can you link to the article you were reading?

"the very people that needed the 2nd amendment in order to fight repression actually caused the law to be passed."

Funny, I don't see a Black Panther's signature on the Mulford Act. I see Reagan's. And I see racist Republican toadies like James Watt pushing the Mulford Act through based on racist fears of suburbanites.

"You call it racism, but blacks were also free to carry until the Black Panthers decided to flex their constitutional muscles."

And this somehow justifies anything how? Sure, the Panthers were extreme but they didn't do anything technically illegal - and you're justifying the Mulford Act based.. on what? "It wasn't illegal but some blacks starting acting up so it should now be illegal - besides, they did it to themselves." Fegh. How utterly ignorant and intolerant.

Look, we Democrats don't make laws based on what we think people "might do". That's why we're against things like preventative detention, pre-emptive war, and the drug war - and that's why the younger, more progressive members of the Democratic Party fight repressive gun control laws like the laws against open/concealed carry.

Personally, I appreciate gun owners that carry openly. It creates a safer atmosphere knowing good people are packing. For safety I carry openly and loaded on the US-Mexico border. I have no doubt that if I did not I would be in big trouble as I have been confronted by armed men other than Border Patrol Agents, mostly smugglers and I usually out gun them which keeps me safe. The Border Patrol has been cool as they know me at least by word of mouth but the sheriff's department has threatened me, saying they would arrest me. However, in the field they change their tune, according to them, based on case law. Cops will lie to you and make up law. They are not attorneies and few know the law well. So now it is more or less a settled question in East County. That is why all Patriots need to open carry in a legal way. The police departments will stop checks if carry is done in volume. Oh and bye the way, the law has changed on National Parks. One can now carry loaded in a National park as well as a Natioanl Forest. I have done both.

jlbraun - Thanks for the completely one-sided, unresearched, and totally biased response. You're the problem, not the solution. Good luck with being a Democrat or a Republican or whatever you think will change the world. Your party affiliation is so nebulous to this discussion it scares me. What, are you going to shoot all of the opposing party because you think they're trampling on your constitutional rights? In other words, is it a "them against us" scenario?

You didn't read much of what I posted in response. My response had very little to do with the article, and more to do with the responses in discussion. Somehow, you missed that, even though I stated it with perfect clarity.

Here's my favorite:

"Look, we Democrats don't make laws based on what we think people 'might do'."

Um. Duh. Every single law passed in congress and the senate is based on what people "might do". To state otherwise is either ignorant or irrational, which supports my point entirely.

As a liberal and Obama supporter, I applaud the open carry people for their efforts to change the carry laws in California, and their careful adherence to the current laws.

I have a concealed carry permit in Minnesota and do carry a handgun often. I only intend to use it as a last resort in self defense, and I'm glad that I'm able to carry a gun here. Other liberals need to understand that gun owners don't want to intimidate anyone by carrying our guns. On the contrary, we simply want to be able to defend ourselves if attacked. People who carry are generally very polite, too, since we can't risk being blamed for starting an altercation that could lead to a self defense shooting. I believe that an armed society is a peaceful one, as long as the people carrying are responsible.

"Oh and bye the way, the law has changed on National Parks. One can now carry loaded in a National park as well as a Natioanl Forest. I have done both."

You can't carry in an NP yet, the new law signed by Obama takes effect in February. Do it now and you're committing a felony.

@gringorefrito

OK, so you're talking about the comments, and perhaps some people got a little huffy. So? Doesn't change the fact that CA's laws against defensive firearm carry are racist in origin, and that these open carry guys are worth supporting.

Of course, if you're rich you can get a permit to carry a loaded concealed handgun - just ask Sly Stallone (issed a permit Los Angeles County 30-Nov-2004 to carry a loaded concealed handgun). So it's classist too.

The laws against the law-abiding carrying defensive firearms in CA is a racist, classist, remnant of California's archaic, conservative past and needs to go away.

By jlbraun 9

Reminds me of Dianne Feinstein, when she was SF Mayor she tried to outlaw handguns in 1983-didn't go over too good in the courts, but what she did do was refuse to allow the sheriff or polcie chief issue CCW permits.

There were just 9 permits in the entire county back then. Then Fienstein had a death threat leveled against here for whatever reason(many people get death threats)-and guess who ran to the sheriff and immediately got a CCW permit??? Yep, Feinstein.

LA County ius also very stingy with CCW's, but when Willie Williams was appointed cheif he asked for and received a CCW as soon as he moved out from Philly, before he was sworn in.

CCW's, like many things in gov, go to the connected few when it is discretionary. That is why "shall issue" CCW laws are the ONLY fair way to issue CCW's. Florida is a good example of shall issue state. a

"...and that's why the younger, more progressive members of the Democratic Party fight repressive gun control laws like the laws against open/concealed carry."

Apparently not. The concealed weapons amendment was just defeated in the Senate... (wait for it)... by the Democrats. The bill got only 58 of the 60 votes needed. Of course, President Obama, considered one of the "more progressive members of the Democratic Party" had threatened to veto the bill if it had passed.

Anyway, point is, feel free to put away the Political Party Affiliation card.

And, for the record, I'm with SurfPuppy, I'm all for "shall issue" CCW in all states.

Ponzi-anyone who has any firearm experience, even a minimum, knows that you CANNOT own a firearm in CA unless you have had the required TRAINING from the safety classes REQUIRED to purchase a firearm.

The NRA is the largest firearms safety trainer in the world.

I 100% satisfied that anyone buying a firearm in CA today has more then adequate training to use it safely.

By SurfPuppy619 12:37 p.m., Jul 20, 2009 > Report it

WRONG AGAIN!

I bought a gun at that gun place on Morena Blvd. and all I had to do was take a test. Like 10 or 20 questions, I recall. Most of them were common sense like "don't stick the gun up your ass" and things like that. It took about 10 minutes to read and complete the test. I have never been in a class. EVER. And I walked out with a gun a few days later. NRA? I never took any NRA classes, read any books or had anyone show me how to use the gun.

I'm all for people having the right to own a gun. But I don't buy into this lame "open carry" nonsense. If he needs attention, he should get a unique dog to walk. Great Dains get a lot of looks.

Also, some crazy friend of a friend who has DUI convictions and a domestic violence convition bought a gun too. The only reason I knew about it was a mutual friend was mentioning how he couldn't believe the due was sold a gun being that he has a criminal record an is bi-polar as a crack monkey. You have to be a felon to be refused a gun. All the other crimes and you can still legally buy.

"Also, some crazy friend of a friend who has DUI convictions and a domestic violence conviction bought a gun too. The only reason I knew about it was a mutual friend was mentioning how he couldn't believe the due was sold a gun being that he has a criminal record an is bi-polar as a crack monkey. You have to be a felon to be refused a gun. All the other crimes and you can still legally buy."

If he has a criminal record and he is bi-polar, then he lied on the gun purchase form. Turn him in anonymously and the cops will pay him a visit and relieve him of that weapon.

I'm not saying you're making this up ... I'm just saying ... "A friend of a friend ..." ??? You didn't hear it from a more reliable source, like his nephew's girlfriend of someone's mother's neighbor's hairdresser's dry cleaner?

Ponzi, those would be "Great Danes". I took me a couple of minutes to figure out what you meant by "Dains". I was thinking, "typo?" "Drains?" "Gains?" And then it dawned on me you were talking about a dog...

gracedigger, there is not rule concerning a person being depressed or bi-polar which would prohibit them from ownig a gun. Also, if the Domestic Violence or other violent misdemeanor was not within 10 years, a person can buy a gun. A DUI or drug conviction (unless felony) is not a
"violent" misdemeanor.

So a person who beat his wife AND was convicted of it woul dhave to wait ten years. But if he beat his wife last week and she did not report it, he could go out and buy a gun.

A drunk driver, who has been arrested for simple drug possession, who is bi-polar and has other non-violent misdemeanors convitions CAN STILL BUY A GUN!

This is the test for buying a handgun. Also remember, THERE IN NO CHECK FOR A SHOT GUN.

POSSESSION
It is unlawful for anyone convicted of a felony, or
who is a drug addict, present or former mental patient,
ever committed for mental observation, or acquitted by
reason of insanity to own or possess any firearm. People
with certain misdemeanor convictions involving force or
violence may not possess or own any firearm within 10
years of the conviction.

"If you are not part of a "well regulated militia," then guns are illegal to own or carry in this great nation."

TM, all Americans are part of a well regulated militia. The history of the 2nd Amendment goes all of the way back to 12th century England, where men were obligated under the King's law to bear arms. While I question the wisdom of practicing open carry in crowded places where it isn't necessary, and while you are certainly entitled to your opinion concerning firearms, your argument based on your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is faulty.

The concept of a militia in 18th century America was based on the defense of the public, which included the individual.

for #39: Gang members don't use legal open carry because they are criminals and don't usually engage in behavior that may bring extra public or police scrutiny. They also often are not legally in possession of their firearms to begin with! The law-abiding citizens who are exercising their right to open carry are legal gun owners who have to pass a safety course mandated by the state of California before they can even purchase their legal firearm. Contrast that with criminals who illegally obtain their weapon and who are likely very unsafe in their handling of it. Enforce the laws on the books with regard to criminal activity but don't punish responsible gun owners who are fighting the good fight to keep their right to keep and bear arms.

A word on the 2nd amendment language:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Here's my "translation" into clearer, modern English:
"Because it is necessary for the United States to have a regular army to protect the people, we will not prevent citizens from having firearms [to protect themselves from abuses by said army and the government]."

Consider what the founders and the continental army had just been through in order to guarantee the freedom of their children and future generations of Americans. They had to fight an army that was trying to take their ability to defend themselves away from them! One of the first things the British did to set off open hostilities in the year 1775 was to attempt to confiscate ammunition from the continentals! Gun control works very effectively in controlling people, just ask the victims of the nazis, the soviets and just about any other place where individual liberty is less than it is in the USA.

I almost forgot this food for thought (for people like TM... I'm former military too, by the way. I guess that makes me one of those people our homeland security secretary would consider a likely terrorist.)

The second amendment is the one that guarantees us the other nine. None of the other amendments do that.

If you don't think our other freedoms are under greater threat without the protection the 2nd amendment offers, you have your head in the sand.

A gun is nothing more than a tool. Any number of dangerous tools are in most of our garages. But with skill and care, we use these dangerous tools everyday to great effect in improving our lives and earning a living. Why is it so difficult a leap for people to see guns in the same way they see a reciprocating saw or a car or any other tool that has potential for great harm if used incorrectly or irresponsibly? If you're not an idiot when you're behind the wheel, you should be able to drive. Same goes for a gun. Your right should be protected until you prove yourself unworthy of the responsibility. That's the American way, folks. If you don't like the feeling of "insecurity" that gives you, perhaps you aren't cut out to handle the responsibility of the freedom you are given as an American citizen. There are far "safer" countries you can go to all over the world. Just remember that America was founded by people who would rather die free than live in a blanket of "security" provided by a powerful government that tells you how you may live.

TM, if you were TRULY a retired U.S. Military Officer, then you would have had to go through training with respect to the US Constitution. With that training comes a thorough knowledge of exactly what you as a member of the United States Military are SWORN to uphold and protect. As a retired member, that oath is still completely valid. The SUPREME COURT of the United States of America upheld that the Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution (A document that you SWORE to help to protect from all enemies foreign and domestic) is an INDIVIDUAL rather than a collective right. Which makes your entire comment off the cuff and void. Why don't you go and read the Constitution again. Re-examine exactly where you are coming from, or if, as I suspect, you are an idiot Brady Bunch agent-provocateur who never served a day of anything in your life, you are breaking the law by purporting yourself to be a retired member of the United States Military.

"Here's my "translation" into clearer, modern English:
"Because it is necessary for the United States to have a regular army to protect the people, we will not prevent citizens from having firearms [to protect themselves from abuses by said army and the government]." - Repeater

That is a BEAUTIFUL way of stating it!

Lets try another ...

Remember that the amendments always start with the understood "The Constitution guarantees the right to ..."

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

I read this as, We have the RIGHT to a WELL-REGULATED militia (The military!) We have the RIGHT to a standing army that will defend this country against its enemies, foreign and domestic, and it should be WELL-REGULATED, because GOOD REGULATION of an ARMY is necessary to the security of a FREE STATE! If at some point, it becomes UNregulated or POORLY regulated (Read: Mexican police dept. corruption style pseudo-military), the PEOPLE shall have the right to bear arms so that they are not oppressed BY that out-of-control military.

It is so obvious that only one quote can apply to those who deny it:

"A man, convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still." - Unknown

It isn't that the gun grabbers CAN'T see the people's obvious RKBA, it is that THEY WON'T SEE IT.

Let me first say that while I come off as a liberal democrat (which is fairly accurate), I am not opposed to guns nor do I wish to repeal the 2nd amendment. I'm just not convinced that open carry is the best means to achieve what it’s advocates want.

Here are what seem to be the top four reasons for open carry and some concerns:

Personal safety and protection. One example in support of this is that the police response time is usually too long to actually protect or serve.

It's not clear how open carry actually protects anyone since the weapon is unloaded. It seems that it can only serve as a deterrent. Now, in some situations, a deterrent may be enough (though I do wonder if a gun is the only deterrent that would work in those situations). However, in situations where a LOADED gun is necessary to protect self and loved ones, it's not clear that one would have the time to load the weapon, aim and shoot in time to protect oneself. Of course the possible scenarios are endless and there may be time to load, aim and shoot. (In addition, I am unfamiliar with guns so I may be overestimating the time it takes to load a weapon.) However, it's not immediately obvious that open carrying is the best form of personal safety and protection. If personal safety/protection is the goal, it seems that concealed carry permit (which I'm assuming allows loaded weapons?).

Exercising your legal rights in CA (and by extension highlighting the erosion of the 2nd amendment).

The issue here is twofold: 1) if one open carry's (sp?) simply because one is legally permitted to, then it's little more than grandstanding (and I'm assuming that is not the intent of open carry practitioners); and 2) if one open carry's to make a larger point, then one has to ask herself if open carrying makes that point. What open carry does achieve is strong, emotional reactions from both sides of the 2nd amendment debate. It's not clear that it achieves anything more than that. Now, if perhaps when one open carried or had an event, she always made sure to educate folks on what and why she was doing so- it might help. (And perhaps the open carry events do this- again, I plead ignorance.) But simply seeing someone with a gun on her hip is not going to change perceptions/feelings re: the 2nd amendment.

Creating a climate of acceptance for guns (and by extension changing societal attitudes in hopes of reversing any infringements on the 2nd amendment).

This reason could have been lumped into the 2nd point, but I think they are distinct. However, my comment on it is the same. If one is attempting to create a climate of acceptance for guns and change societal attitudes in hopes of reversing the infringements on the 2nd amendment- then it's important to look at the efficacy of the approach. Does open carry change societal attitudes and create a climate of gun acceptance? It might... changing attitudes is a long term project and this would be hard to measure in any immediate way. Even granting that it might change attitudes, I doubt that open carry is the BEST approach, at least not without some education and serious debate to go along with it- primarily because many (if not most) folks respond emotionally the sight of a gun.

An exercise of freedom and liberty (both of which, many seem to think are becoming extinct).

This reason is the hardest to rebut simply because "freedom" and "liberty" draw on emotion and it's difficult to argue against/invalidate an emotion. I would just say that "freedom" and "liberty" are not meant to be used in a vacuum. It is always "freedom from X" or "liberty to Y". Without identifying the "from X" or "to Y", freedom and liberty are simply political rallying cries; appealing but empty. So...without knowing what freedoms open carry gives or how open carry affords a liberty from something, I can't adequately respond to this one. Having said that, because of the emotional nature of "freedom" and "liberty", this is the most compelling argument. And if advocates of open carry want to rally folks to their cause, then the construction of an argument based upon this point needs to be fleshed out.er, my comment on it is the same. If one is attempting to create a climate of acceptance for guns and change societal attitudes in hopes of reversing the infringements on the 2nd amendment- then it's important to look at the efficacy of the approach. Does open carry change societal attitudes and create a climate of gun acceptance? It might... changing attitudes is a long term project and this would be hard to measure in any immediate way. Even granting that it might change attitudes, I doubt that open carry is the BEST approach, at least not without some education and serious debate to go along with it- primarily because many (if not most) folks respond emotionally the sight of a gun.

I like how folks are blaming the people who called the police about seeing a guy with a gun in PB. It would be good if guns had a visual indicator of whether they were loaded or not. But you can't tell, you know? If I see some guy with a gun having a debate with our local urban outdoorsmen, my first guess is not that it's unloaded. Also, does Nate live in PB or does he just come here to tie up the time of one of the two police cars we have on any given day for the entire beach area? I understand wanting to make a political point. But you could make the same exact point with speech - flyers or a sign saying "do you know it's legal to carry an unloaded gun in public?" without making the cops waste calls on this kind of stunt.

Cops have no obligation to protect your life and they are not required to come out if you call. If you have a problem with an otherwise legal activity, then you should contact the PD and get the dispatchers trained like they are in VA.

Also, the cops knew about most of our events, as we gave them ample "courtesy notice."

"Cops have no obligation to protect your life and they are not required to come out if you call."

Yeah Nate, they do. I have no idea where you're getting your information from. If the dispatcher sends a unit, then that is their job. It's serve and protect, not ignore and deflect.

By refriedgringo

Cops do NOT have any legal obligation to protect your life, or anyone else's life. Zero, none, nada.

As for coming out on a call, again, they do NOT have an "obligation". Whether there is a department rule regarding dispatch orders to go on a call that is not a legal obligation but a department rule-that is entirely different from having a "legal obligation".

If the police had an "obligation" they would be liable for breaching such an obligation.

When was the last time you heard of SDPD getting sued for not coming out to a complaint call??????????????Never-that's when.

And the fact is case law from the US Superme Court has indemnified police from liability for negligent breach of their job-"protecting and serving".

"Protect and serve" is nothing more than hype and propaganda.

Just because San Diego call's itself "America's Finest City" doesn't make it true.

Surfpuppy, do you understand anything about how law enforcement works? It isn't the officer's choice not to respond to a call. You strike me as pretty astute most of the time, I'm sort of surprised that you wouldn't know this. The tech taking the citizen complaint makes the decision to send units. Once the unit is sent a request to respond, the unit either gives a reason why they can't or simply responds. If a unit can't respond, then the tech sends another unit or decides not to.

"And the fact is case law from the US Superme Court has indemnified police from liability for negligent breach of their job-"protecting and serving"."

It's for the same reason that you can't sue the ambulance driver for arriving after a heart-attack victim dies.

"Just because San Diego call's itself "America's Finest City" doesn't make it true."

Cops are cops, it's about the same in any city, finest or not. And coppers are obligated, first and foremost, to pretect public safety.

It's for the same reason that you can't sue the ambulance driver for arriving after a heart-attack victim dies.

That doesn't even make sense, and in any event it is not the same thing.

Police are under NO obligation to protect anyone.

An amublance driver is under a legal duty to respond in a timely fashion and provide aid-a LEGAL duty. And they can be sued for gross negligence in failing to provide that duty. Police are not udner a legal duty to provide any kind of aid whatsoever and cannot be sued, even under gross neghligence.

You can all continue to believe what you wish, and try to justify wearing unloaded guns for whatever nebulous reason you can find in order to try and justify what goes against common sense. Try not to cry when it gets your 2nd Amendment rights taken away from you. And make sure that you tell the next cop that you see what their job ISN'T. They love to hear that.

refriedgringo, after reading post 121, I think you miss the entire point.

The bill of rights contains rights we are guaranteed, thus they can not be taken away from us. When laws are created that do this or if people who act in the name of the law do so, it is in violation of our freedom as U.S. citizens.

If you believe that the constitution lists the fundamental rights of citizens of this nation and that they are indeed inalienable, you must defend those rights lest other rights you do care about be taken from you, such as freedom of speech or religion.

Imagine the 2nd amendment is completely taken away. What if an extremist state that does this next declared that everyone will attend a state church every week that teaches doctrine contrary to your beliefs? Will you regret surrendering your 2nd amendment freedom then?

Repeater, if you've read some of the other comments I made to this story, you'll note that I fully support the 2nd Amendment, and I think that all States should allow anyone to apply for a concealed loaded permit. After a background check, such applications should be granted.

I simply question the wisdom of open carrying on a beach in San Diego, simply as a protest or because someone doesn't trust the police or whatever stupid reason one wants to use to justify something so brazenly rude. There isn't any difference between open carrying in a crowded and well-protected city than it is to wear a T-shirt that say "F#$% THE GOVERNMENT I DARE YOU TO TAKE AWAY MY RIGHTS!"

People that open carry in a populated area with an adequate police force are not excersizing their constitutional rights, they are trying to prove a point at the expense of everyone else that doesn't need to carry an unloaded weapon in order to understand what the 2nd Amendment is and what it guarantees. Look at all of the comments in here from people that hint of the promise that they will use their guns to change the way that government works. They would turn democracy into mob rule, just so they can carry their unloaded weapons around. That's not a good trade. That's an extremist State in lieu of a repressive one.

You change government in a democracy with a vote. You don't need to carry a gun to vote.

I would add, however that although the gun itself is unloaded, the carrier is allowed to carry a magazine or speed loaders for revolvers and could make that gun "fully functional" with great speed if needed. I can imagine that if I was a welder with a $15,000 rig on my work truck that I might open carry to protect my huge investment in my vital gear if the state was being uncooperative in issuing a concealed carry permit (which I believe would be preferable in any case).

I think you may have valid criticisms of whether this practice (as done by Nate and company) will ultimately achieve the goal or hurt the cause. As of now, Nate is more of an expert on that than I am but I suppose we'll have to just wait and see what happens.

Look at all of the comments in here from people that hint of the promise that they will use their guns to change the way that government works. They would turn democracy into mob rule, just so they can carry their unloaded weapons around. That's not a good trade. That's an extremist State in lieu of a repressive one.

You change government in a democracy with a vote. You don't need to carry a gun to vote.

By refriedgringo 4

I think having the right to own arms is a key to keeping gov honest.

I also do not think that you can very change government today with a vote-at least as in how you described it. Gov is run by special interests and those special interests can usually buy elected officials, so the voting power becomes less of a factor.

repeater75, carrying a rifle/shotgun in your car or on your person while unloaded is permissible pretty much everywhere in the state. You can carry it concealed or openly without a locked container since it is NOT considered a CONCEALABLE firearm.

Keep an eye on my blog, my brother and I are redoing our open carry training videos here pretty soon and we are going to address long gun carry, which seems to be more relevant to you and your welding rig.

Re: Comments 120 & 121 where one man believes police do not have to protect us and a second scoffs at his idea:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1432132/posts:
Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone.
New York Times ^ | June 28, 2005 | Linda Greenhouse
"WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday, overturning a ruling by a federal appeals court in Colorado... police d[o] not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm..."

Specifically in California Two Items and a Comment from
http://hematite.com/dragon/policeprot.html:
1."Ruth Brunell called the police on 20 different occasions to plead for protection from her husband. He was arrested only one time. One evening Mr. Brunell telephoned his wife and told her he was coming over to kill her. When she called the police, they refused her request that they come to protect her. They told her to call back when he got there. Mr. Brunell stabbed his wife to death before she could call the police to tell them that he was there. The court held that the San Jose police were not liable for ignoring Mrs. Brunell's pleas for help. Hartzler v. City of San Jose, 46 Cal. App. 3d 6 (1st Dist. 1975).
2. California even put this into a Statute -
California's Government Code, Sections 821, 845, and 846 which state, in part: "Neither a public entity or a public employee [may be sued] for failure to provide adequate police protection or service, failure to prevent the commission of crimes and failure to apprehend criminals.''

COMMENT: "In light of court decisions ... You have no right to expect the police to protect you from crime. Incredible as it may seem, the courts have ruled that the police are not obligated to even respond to your calls for help, even in life threatening situations!. To be fair to our men in blue, I think most officers really do want to save lives and stop dangerous situations before people get hurt. But the key point to remember is that they are under no legal obligation to do so."

An interesting discussion, but the user name should be displayed at the beginning of each post to facilitate skipping illogical messages.

For those who quote 2A's "militia" clause to prove that keeping and bearing arms is not an individual right: give it up! The SCOTUS Heller decision indicated that keeping and bearing arms IS an individual right, and specifically stated that the "militia" clause is prefatory only and does not limit the scope of the rest of the sentence.

TM - Wait, wait, wait. The Bill of Rights do not contain an exhaustive list of what is allowed for Americans to do. The Bill of Rights does not say that you have the right to chew gum and yet it's not illegal. In the same way, no matter how you interpret the "well regulated militia" portion of the Second Amendment, it does not mean that anyone left out from protection contained therein is therefore by default prohibited from owning keeping and bearing arms. The Bill of Rights (if you would read the text) state what Congress shall not make a law against, it is an indelible safeguard against what the Framers considered to be the fundamental basis of human rights. If you want to ban guns universally, as you mistakenly claim is the current state of affairs, you must either pass on a law on the federal level (if the Supreme Court hadn't just affirmed that the right to bear arms is individual) or you must do it at the state level across the land; Good luck with that!

In reading some of the comments here, there seems to be some confusion due to a misunderstanding regarding what the term "well regulated" meant in 1776 vs. what it means today.

A history professor in college many moons ago explained to the class I was in that some words change their definition over time and trying to fit the past definition to the current one can cause confusion and misunderstanding. He used as one example the word lousy. Today, we might say someone is lousy meaning he does a poor job or is not a nice person, but back in the days of old, we would have been saying that the man was infested with lice. Big difference between then and now when using this word. He then gave a second example referring to the meaning of the words "well regulated" as used today vs. its meaning when the Bill of Rights was written.

Today, we use the term well regulated to mean well controlled or structured or such. However, when the Framers of the Constitution used this phrase, they were referring to the militia being properly outfitted, that is, having arms in their possession and available for immediate use. Let us review the Amendment. It says, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. " Note, if they had meant controlled or structured under some authority, they would Not have talked about equipment (arms) but rather named some type of chain of command (authority) or such. But rather they said to be "well regulated" every citizen had the right to keep and bear arms which meant they would be well regulated as in the possession of equipment. Again, like lousy, a big difference.

We are often told that we would be "better off" if firearms were sharply limited and unavailable to others than the military and law enforcement. Perhaps in an ideal world that would be the case. However, we don't have to look far to see that an unarmed citizenry is at the mercy of those who do possess firearms. There was a time in the UK when the police went about utterly unarmed with anything more lethal than a truncheon. Now many of the police do carry firearms because dangerous elements of their society have illegal guns.

If the anti-gun folks in this nation want to get rid of guns, they need to repeal the 2nd Amendment. The process for amending the Constitution is rather simple and straightforward. The Congress passes with super-majorities a resolution to amend the Constitution with the exact language stated. Then the states act. When three quarters of the states ratify the amendment, it becomes part of the Constitution. Three quarters of 50 is 37 1/2, meaning that 38 states must approve. That also means that 13 states that do not approve can block any amendment.

Imagine if you will an attempt to repeal the 2nd Amendment. Think there are at least 13 states that prefer to keep it? Virtually certain. Thus no repeal now or in the foreseeable future. The same goes for attempts to repeal the limit on presidential terms, and to replace the current electoral college. (In the case of the latter, states with only one or two House members get an outsize influence in presidential elections. Those states are NOT going to give that up. They are already ignored in many ways, and yielding their small advantage makes no sense to them. I digress.)

The Equal Rights Amendment proposed many years ago was never ratified by enough states. That was true when Congress extended the deadline for states to ratify it. Amending the Constitution is no slam-dunk. That's why "change agents" prefer judicial activism--rewriting laws and even the Constitution from the bench.

I would like to comment on Mr. Neil Evangelista's letter in the 8/13/09 issue of the Reader.
You are absolutely right in everything you said, but in reality the California Lawmakers, in their infinite wisdom, don't seem to value our Lives as much as they do Politicians, Movie Stars, rich people and public figures, so they make it almost impossible to get a Concealed Carry Permit by an "ordinary person".

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Penn explains the 2nd amendment. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YY5Rj4cQ50 .
Here in Pennsylvania we can open carry without any kind of license. With the exception of Philadelphia which is a "city of the first class". That means I can open carry in Philly only if I have a license to carry a firearm. Even though I have said license, I choose not to open carry in Philly or anywhere in the state for that matter. I just don't want the attention. But I like the fact that I have a CHOICE. The only places I can't carry are government buildings, schools, and airports. I actually drive with my Glock in my cup holder. Also, there is no ammunition restrictions. I use Speer gold dot hollow points as my carry ammo and then switch to regular full metal jacketed bullets at the range. There are no laws about carrying a gun in bars or restaurants.

I think that CA's unloaded open carry law is the weirdest thing I've ever heard. An unloaded gun is a club. Are you gonna ask the bad guy to wait a second while you unholster your gun, retrieve your magazine, insert your magazine, and rack the slide? That law makes no sense what so ever. If I was a bad guy in CA and I saw someone OCing, I would have a warm feeling knowing that that person's gun was unloaded and harmless. But it looks pretty on your hip.

Hey JIDinPhilly, we are working on getting the laws changed. This is part of the process, namely bringing awareness to the issue. We want to have a CHOICE as well and that time shall soon come. PA has the 2A in their Constitution, CA does not. That little difference creates a huge disparity in legislation.

The second amendment to the Constitution has nothing to do with hunters but everything to do with the citizenry being armed against a tyrannical government. If the anti-gunners here would read their history they would understand that our forefathers had just fought a war against such a government. In order to keep the citizenry free from another tyrannical government they demanded that a bill of certain rights be added to the Constitution. One was the right to keep and bear arms. The wording maybe questionable but their intent was not. In 1776 people spoke the king's English but keep and bear mean exactly what is says. Look it up.

Might I says to the person who posted "While I question the wisdom of practicing open carry in crowded places where it isn't necessary", you should recall what happened in the "crowd"ed Liby's restaurant in Texas were they didn't allow the right to carry, a man drove his truck threw the window of the "crowd"ed restaurant and got out with two 9mm hand guns and killed 22 people. If one person had a gun they could have reduced that number too one. A woman did have a gun but let in her car, in which she regrets, and had the law changed.

Now, before the Supreme Court of the United States of America, is a case that may establish, once and for all, whether cities or states can restrict ones right to carry from one state to another. I hope they strike at the heart of the anti-gunners. I sick of their illogical mantra.

Those who would give up some liberty for some safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

"Might I says to the person who posted "While I question the wisdom of practicing open carry in crowded places where it isn't necessary", you should recall what happened in the "crowd"ed Liby's restaurant in Texas were they didn't allow the right to carry, a man drove his truck threw the window of the "crowd"ed restaurant and got out with two 9mm hand guns and killed 22 people."

Um. Okay, using THAT logic, then if someone walks into your local Target with a bomb strapped to their back, should we all carry bombs in retaliation?

Dude, I'm pro 2nd amendment so long as it doesn't apply to idiots. If you're out to shoot up your government, then you don't deserve to bear arms. There are numerous reasons why I would never live in Texas. The proliferation of complete idiots with guns is at the top of that list.

Your logic speaks volumes about you. How can you make a statement like "Uh, I'm pro 2nd amendment"?

It's a damn good thing that you weren't around when the patriots fought against the Brits.

"I don't want to shoot at those nice tyrants that killed all those folks up in Lexington. Those people up there don't deserve to protect themselves and they shouldn't be allowed to keep and bear arms. Rebel, terrorist scum, right."

gwalt, I'm not sure what your point is. I believe that Americans should have the right to bear arms, and the good sense not to do so in public, unless there's a damned good reason to do so.

"I don't want to shoot at those nice tyrants that killed all those folks up in Lexington. Those people up there don't deserve to protect themselves and they shouldn't be allowed to keep and bear arms. Rebel, terrorist scum, right."

I have no idea how you arrived at this statement based on my responses here. First of all, it isn't 1776 anymore, it's 2009 according to my calendar. In 1776, there was a war in New England. In 2009, there is no war in the United States. These days, the government sends troops off to fight on foreign soil.

If you're saying that since I believe that practicing open carry at a crowded beach is a ridiculous way to exersize one's 2nd Amendment rights, then I would have gladly joined King George III during the American Revolutionary War, it isn't my logic that's faulty, it's your own.

Here's some more faulty logic: People need to open carry in public places with a large population in order to let the Obama administration know that they are prepared to start a civil war if their 2nd Amendment rights are infringed upon. Ha! If you wonder why the fringe of the far left wants more gun control laws, all you have to do is consider that threat and you'll know why.

I would feel much better if those people who enjoyed walking around with unloaded guns in plain view would apply for and receive loaded-conclealed permits. I am very much pro 2nd Amendment. I am very much against people who would let an empty gun in a populated area attempt to do what should be done instead by electing a government that suits them and their 2nd Amendment rights.

I was born and raised in California, and for the past 17 years I have lived in Mexico, which does not permit people to own guns. I know the difference between guns and no guns.

AG observed: "It's also the reason people are reeeeeeeal polite down there."

You're correct. That is a wonderful byproduct of the loaded gunrack in the pick-up truck. Of course, we're talking about a subculture that strongly believes in the death penalty, and justifies that belief with the philosophy that, "Well, he was mean. He needed killin'..." ;)

gwalt. He figured I needed telling off. I'm at a loss to understand how I'm not being understood here. I am pro gun ownership. I am pro concealed and loaded with a permit. I am against using open carry in order to forward an agenda. Honestly, I don't expect that everyone is going to agree, but is there any way that I'm not clear on this, to the point where someone would accuse me of being a traitor? Should I create charts and draw diagrams?

"I support your right to free speech too, just as long as you aren't saying or posting anything in any public place where anyone besides yourself can see it. That sounds good, right?"

No, but consider this: Let's say that John Smith is completely against firearms of any kind. He gathers up a few of his friends and they decide to stand outside of a NRA meeting with bullhorns and loudly protest the NRA. Do they have that right? Sure. Is is smart, or is such an action going to change anything? No.

"Permits are a taxed PRIVILEGE in most places, not a RIGHT.
You must have a really, really hard time getting around that whole "shall not be infringed" part of the 2nd Amendment.
If rights were based on emotions, we wouldn't have any rights."

Then I would say in spite of you open carry people, your 2nd Amendment right has already been infringed. You can't even carry a loaded gun. It reduces what you are doing to that of carrying a toy. If such an effort was put into campaigning for representatives that support the second amendment, it would have a fighting chance at not being further demolished.

Feel free to not agree with me, I don't mind, but please stop with the "you are against/don't understand/are emotional over the 2nd Amendment" argument. It isn't true. My argument is that by practicing open carry needlessly (simply to prove a point about its consitutionality) has the opposite effect on those who you would like to convince that gun control is unconstitutional.

I was doing the open carry thing on a high school campus before it was called open carry, years after Penn State, after the Watts riots, and after Detroit, DC and a few other select cities were burning in the 1960s.

It was called Army JROTC, and open carry was what we were doing a platoon or a company at a time, all day long, with zero complaints from anybody, because Spring Valley was unincorporated and still is a zany, wacky kind of place.

We carried M14s, the same type of weapon I used and qualified with when I was later in the presidential escort battalion of the 3d US Infantry Regiment in the Military District of Washington. The M14 is still in use in the Old Guard; search for the pictures online.

In my arms room (and it was mine as cadet battalion S-4/asst. chief of staff for logistics, according to the list of controlling individuals for military property custodial purposes) there were 80 M14 rifles, 20 .22 match rifles, a brace of M1911 pistols, and typically one or more M16s and a pig AKA M60 machine gun. And yes, we open-carried them all (except Miss Piggy) at one time or another, in plain view on campus with, as I said before, zero complaints. We would even come to the city to shoot at the Morse High School 50-foot indoor range.

Every time we open-carried at a varsity football game to present the Colors, we were applauded and saluted by those in attendance on both sides of the stadium.

The militia is NOT the Regular Army. It is by 10 USC 311 every male citizen between the ages of 17 and 45, and every female member of the National Guard. Technically, because I am an honorably discharged veteran of a regular branch of federal service pursuant to 32 USC 313, I am extended in the militia until age 64, after which I am ineligible for enlistment in the National Guard, at least for federal recognition purposes. And yes, even though the National Guard is supposed to be federalized at all times post-9/11, the National Guard is NOT the totality of any state's militia.

From the above, if somebody tells you to join the NG to be in the militia, you just got called a woman. For most men of age in most parts of San Diego, them's fighting words.

I haven't even gotten started on the topic of state defense forces (militia but not NG by act of Congress), or on individual citizen/family involvement in all-hazard homeland security under President G. W. Bush's National Response Framework or President Obama's proposed National Disaster Recovery Framework.

If some or even most people don't want to carry or are afraid to carry, don't worry: there are plenty of trained veterans, former cadets, and ex-scouts with hunter-safety cards out there to carry for you. It's why we're here for you.

This string of commentary has been going on for months. Well, in response to posting #154, the notion that Army JROTC cadets were engaged in open carry is rather ludicrous. I had plenty of experience with ROTC, and those M-14's, as had the M-1's that preceded them, had their firing pins removed. No rational Army officer was going to send high school students out into public with live fire capable rifles. All it would have taken is for some kid trying to show off to put a .308 Win round into his M-14 and kill somebody. As to my credentials, I was an S-4 in Senior ROTC at a major university campus, not an assistant, and had full access to all the necessary tools to both remove firing pins and to put them back in.

If a2zresource was a member of the 1/3 Infantry Regiment, "The Old Guard", stationed at Ft. Myer, VA, and used mostly for ceremonial purposes in and around Arlington National Cemetery, I congratulate him. That is a very prestigious assignment in the U S Army. (That unit, attired in Army BLUE, guards the Tomb of the Unknowns at Arlington, on a perpetual basis. They carry the M-14 rifle.)

What I don't follow is the point that this post was making. Was it about open carry? Or was it about the definition of militia? Or is it to brag about his military service? If it has to do with open carry, I line up with those who are alarmed with "heat" packing guys on the streets. Just because you can carry doesn't mean you should. There's one time every year when I carry a holstered sidearm, in one particular place, and the piece is very definitely loaded. Does that make me a lawbreaker? I don't think so. It is the setting that makes the difference.

Right. We cadets put the pins in every time we went for annual live fire exercises, and we took them back out some time afterward. The thing is, even with firing pins removed, if someone operating out of the Lemon Grove Sheriff's Station had seen one of us with a locked 20-round box visibly in the magazine well, how in the blue blazes would Deputy Dog know the firing pin was missing?

Besides... just about all of us had a multi-purpose tool purchased at the Spring Valley swap meet and designed to put in a firing pin in about two minutes, unless that damn retaining spring in the bolt face sprang out and had to be chased down with some effort. Of course, it was a whole lot of demerits for anyone caught doing that.

For the record, all cadets and veterans know that the first and last commands of the day were inspection arms to make sure that nobody had a live round chambered. For those veterans and cadets who don't know, your instructors and commanders were unbelievably slack.

Unless I typed it in incorrectly, my position as BN S-4 was also that of assistant chief of staff for logistics, by TO&E, where the BN XO was chief of staff. At least it was infantry battalion TO&E at the time, right at the end of American involvement in Vietnam.

In the Old Guard, blues were for Arlington National Cemetery, the White House, and other high-level assignments. On the other hand, to bury hundreds of Black World War II enlisted veterans, men who were routinely denied combat service and never were awarded a Silver Star as a minimal entitlement for an Arlington drop, we wore the Army green uniform at the other nearby regional cemeteries, and used the fiberglass M14 stocks with standard issue slings instead of wooden M14 stocks and white web slings for White soldiers at ANC (or "the Bone Yard" as it was referred to out of range of an officer's hearing). Even in death, there were separate honors for veterans of the same wars.

Yes, it was about knowing the difference between the regular components, the National Guard, and the rest of the militia because I served (where a significant number of enlisted men in the Old Guard also happened to be senior ROTC wash-outs) in contrast to the misinformation put out in some of the other comments above.

If seeing people carrying firearms with or without firing pins makes all of us a bit more vigilant, then so be it. That's how it should be, especially when the one with the gun also has a peace officer's badge on. After all, a loaded piece is generally more dangerous than an empty one, no matter who is carrying it.

If only the same thing would happen about being vigilant whenever some corporation puts a self-serving constitutional amendment on the ballot...

Obviously you are not very familiar with American history and culture. It is nice you think you can use a dictionary but I did not see anything about us all running to Mexico either.

Why would any of us try that in Mexico, we are all Americans and enjoy these freedoms. If these freedoms make you uncomfortable than you have every right to return to YOUR native country or immigrate to where you want to be part of that country and have those protections.

If you were raised with different cultures and values and were never acclimated then that is very unfortunate. I am multi-national and very diverse in cultures, tolerance and different beliefs. I will always treat people with dignity and respect their rights. I live in America and that is what we have always been about. Respect other's beliefs and customs and stop asking everybody to make changes for your beliefs, instead exercise your rights but do not infringe on the rights of those who wish to express themselves. It is ok to have guns same as it is ok to choose your religion or sexuality. What gives me or you the right to tell someone they cannot worship or have a color of skin? We are still talking about rights of the people that live here in the U.S. now let us be free to enjoy those rights. Stop picking the ones you want and trying to destroy the ones you don't.

I'm honored. Now, I would appreciate it very much if you would go back and read all of my comments, and "stop picking the ones you want". The article in question and discussions thereafter have nothing to do with culture or religion or sexuality, although I admire your soapbox. My point was that practicing "open-carry" in a manner meant to be provocative (for effect rather than necessity) would lead to the government of the United States of America attempting to further trample on the 2nd Amendment rights of the people. While I wanted to be incorrect about that, if you read comment # 153 and the story in the link you will see that, unfortunately, such attempts are being made.

I'm flattered that you think I write comments while referencing a dictionary, but that simply isn't the case. The accusation of unfamiliarity with American culture and history brightened my morning. As a San Diego-born, U.S. College-educated W.A.S.P., I shall inform all of my children, then, that the college education is practically worthless. It will save us all a load of cash in the long run.

About Mexico: It is illegal to own guns without a permit, and permits are practically impossible to get. Here, this is a law that works. Comparing it to the United States of America is silly, the histories of the two countries are dissimilar. Think of it in terms of religion in Vonnegut's "Cat's Cradle". The fictional religion on the fictional island of San Lorenzo was outlawed and anyone found practicing the religion would be executed. Yet, everyone practiced the religion and there were no executions. In a similar manner, people in Mexico own guns, regardless of the law. While that seems to work here (excepting the narco-traffiking, which is an entirely different animal), it would be a disaster for the U.S.

It's true, SP. My father was in the Navy at the time, so I was born in the OLD Balboa Naval Hospital (I think the building is still there, though they moved the location of the maternity ward of the hospital decades ago). When I was around two years old, my father was re-stationed in Santa Ana, and a year later when he got out of the Navy we moved to Los Angeles.

Funny story: When I first moved to Tijuana I played baseball for a few years on a Mexican team here. One season I wound up breaking my foot, a complicated break (I actually shattered my heel bone). Rather than to use medical facilities here, I opted to use medical insurance I had in San Diego. First visit to the specialist I had to fill out information, and I handed it to the medical assistant, a lady about my age.

"Hmm, we were born on the same day, same year," she said.

"Bound to happen sometimes," I said. "Where were you born?"

"San Diego. And you?"

"Balboa Naval Hospital," I told her.

Turns out we were born two minutes apart in the same maternity ward. As fate would also dictate, we've never seen each other since.

As I've read through about 6 pounds of comments I've noticed an oversight. Those who point out that Cali's requirement that a lawful carry be unloaded puts the open carrier at a disadvantage when facing an armed thug who has already displayed a firearm are correct.

But they are in no worse position than an unarmed person and possibly, if they can buy the time to load, in a far better position. I would think it reasonable that most of them can have a semi-auto pistol loaded and on target in well under 2 seconds.

Right now, except for "events", the thug can be reasonably certain that there isn't another lawful carry nearby. He (or, more often, they) needn't even glance around. This makes things relatively easy for the thug. What is needed is a way to remove that certainty.

The fix for this is three-fold. First there need to be more lawful carriers. Just sheer numbers inserts an element of uncertainty for the thug ... they can't control a larger crowd .... that's why they prefer doing 'business' in alleys and abandoned houses. Second they need to be carrying loaded and third they need to have the choice of open / concealed / both.

Feinstein got a gun when her life was first threatened. For many in Cali, their lives are threatened on a daily basis. Feinstein may not agree, but I would contend that their lives are worth at least as much as hers ... they, at least, aren't politicians.